Skip to main content

Full text of "Manimekhalai In Its Historical Setting"

See other formats





Rao Bahadur 

Professor of Indian History and Archaeology , University of Madras. 
Reader^ Calcutta University, Honorary Correspondent of the 
Archaeological Department of the Government of India. 

Cfc. dfc. dfc. 


LUZAC & Co. 









2nd JANUARY, 1928. 



The study of Manimekhalai presented in the following 
pages was intended to be delivered as the ninth of my 
courses of special lectures at the Madras University 
in the last term of the acatiemic year 1925-26, but 
was held over as some points required further study. 
The course was ultimately delivered in March and April 
of the current year rather later than usual in the academic 
year to suit the exigent;ies of other University fixtures. 
This classic and its twin, the ^ilappadhikaram, formed 
part of my study in connection with the investigations on 
the age of the Tamil ^angam, which was undertaken at 
the instance of the late Mr. L. C. Innes, a retired 
Judge of the Madras High Court and an ex- Vice-Chan- 
cellor of the University of Madras, in the early years of 
the century. The first fruit of this study was published 
as the Augustan Age of Tamil Literature, the first 
constructive effort on: my part to solve this problem on 
which a few remarks and criticisms were made, in a paper 
on the Age of Kamban written by the esteemed scholar 
above mentioned, in the pages of the Asiatic Quarterly 
for the year 1898. The Augustan Age of Tamil Lite- 
rature contains matter taken both from the Silappadhi- 
karam and Manimekhalai. This naturally led to »a 
considerable amount of criticism as to how far these two 
works, distinct from the various collections generally 
known as the Sangam collections, could be regarded as 
Sangam works, directly or indirectly. The late Mr. 
V. Venkayya, Epigraphist to the Government of India, 
was willing to admit that the age of the Sangam was the 




second century A.D., but was in doubt whether these 
two works could be regarded as belonging to that 
collection. Mr. K. V. Subramania Aiyar of the 
Department of Epigraphy, took a similar line and wished 
to draw a distinction between the Sangam works as such, 
and these romantic poems. The matter, therefore, 
required further investigation, and I have had to re- 
conside'r the whole question both from the point of view 
of the Sangam works themselves, of which two or three 
important collections had become accessible to me, some 
in print and some in manuscript. My further study of 
this subject was incorporated in a course of lectuies 
delivered before the University, constituting the second of 
the Series, Beginrdngs of South Indian History, which 
was published in book form in 1918. 

In the course of work ranging over a score of years on 
this particular classic, books XXVII, XXIX and XXX 
remained but little used as a specific item of investigation 
for lack of leisure for the subsidiary studies that that inves- 
tigation would have involved. In the course of a contro- 
versy, however, as to the actual date of the Sangam in 
which my late esteemed friend, Mr. L. D. Swamikannu 
Pillai had joined issue on astronomical grounds based on 
poem 1 1 of the Paripadal, a newly published Sangam 
work, the suggestion that the philosophical systems of the 
Manimekhalai may be usefully studied was made by Pro- 
fessor Jacobi of Bonn in a letter that he wrote to me in 
May i' 922. I took up the question then and have been at 
work at intervals when current University work permitted. 
My first idea was to get a translation of these chapters 
made for publication in the Indian Antiquary with a view 
to stimulate discussion on the question. My friend. 
Professor C. S. Srinivasachari of the Pachaiyappa’s 
College, undertook to study the chapters and make a 


translation of them, and brought his manuscript to be 
annotated and published in the Indian Antiquary me. 
Notwithstanding the trouble that he took not only by 
himself alone, but even with the assistance of one or two ' 
other scholars (the late Mr. Kanakasundaram Pillai and 
another), it struck me that that kind of translation would 
not serve the purpose which I had in mind. I had there- 
fore to let the matter lie over till I could attempt it* myself 
with adequate preparation in»the subsidiary studies as a 
necessary pre-requisite. I took up the question and have 
been at it continuously for the last three years more or 
less, amidst other work. The result is published in the 
following lectures. • 

The lectures themselves constitute the first part of the 
work. Then there is a slightly abridged translation of the 
whole of the classic so as to give an idea, of the narrative 
and the setting, to the reader unacquained with Tamil. 

In translating this part, I have had it before me all the 
time to give the reader as much of an idea of the poem as 
a translation could at all give. I have omitted no 
material point and even attempted to keep the tone of the 
original to the best of my ability. The three books, 
XXVII, XXIX and XXX dealing respectively with ‘ the 
Heretical Systems ’, ‘ Buddhist Logic ’, and ‘ the. Teach- 
ings of Buddhism ’ are translated literally, so that apart 
from the use I have made of it, the translation may 
be helpful to those who may not be able to go to the 
original itself. I hope the translation will prove ter be cf 
value for this purpose. 

In the course of this work, I took advantage of the 
progress of my studies to submit three tentative papers 
(i) on ‘ the Buddhism of Manimekhalai ’ to a collection of 
Buddhist Studies in course of publication by my friend. 
Dr. B. C. Law of Calcutta ; (*2) another paper ‘A 




Buddhist School at Kanchi ’ was presented to the 
Fourth Oriental Conference held in Allahabad in Novem- 
ber last, and is in course of publication in the proceedings 
of the Conference; (3) and the last ‘ A Tamil Treatise on 
Buddhist Logic ’ to the Vasanta Silver Jubilee Volume 
in honour of Principal A. B. Dhruva of the Benares 
University by his friends and admirers, and the work is 
expected to be published soon in Ahmadabad. 

In the course of the work Pandit M. Raghava 
Aiyangar of University Tamil Lexicon Office did me the 
favour to assist by putting book XXIX of the poem in 
prose order at my request with a view to facilitating the 
work of translation. I found, h®wever, that the version 
was not of as much value as I had anticipated, as the diffi- 
culty of understanding it lay not so much in the Tamil 
as in a knowledge of the technicalities of Indian Logic as 
such. But the good Pandit’s work was of some assist- 
ance and I acknowledge it with pleasure. Since the 
matter was put in final form, my friend, Mr. T. C. 
Srinivasa Aiyangar, B.A., B.L., M.L.C., Secretary, Tamil 
Sangam, Madura, drew my attention to a brochure by 
Pandit Tirunarayana Aiyangar of the Tamil Sangam. 
It is an exposition of the tecnnical terms of logic with a 

v|ew to elucidating book XXIX of Manimekhalai. It is 

a very useful piece of work and enabled me to make a 
correction or two. I need hardly add that this attempt 
of mine would have been impossible but for the labours of 
Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya V. Svaminatha Aiyar whose 
excellent edition of the work leaves little to be desired 
His notes on books XXVII and XXX were of the 
greatest value and go only to enhance his character for 
deliberately omitted to annotate book 
XXIX. His previous work was of undoubted advantage 
to me even in translating book XXIX. 




Before concluding, I must acknowledge my obligation 
to my venerable friend, Professor H. Jacobi of Bonn. 
His suggestion that the philosophical systems may throw 
light upon the chronology of the poem supplied the 
stimulus for my taking up this work, although exigencies 
of other work prevented my doing it as soon as I might, 
under more favourable circumstances, have done. He 
seems to have gone to work on the subject himself on 
the basis of the abridge^ account given in Mr. 
Kanakasabhai Pillai’s Tamils Eighteen Hundred 
Years ago., and sent me a proof copy of a paper he 
contributed to a ‘ Festschrift ’ in honour of the late Dr. E . 
Hultzsch. He must fee given credit for the independent 
discovery of the similarity of the Buddhist logic of 
Manimekhalai to the Nyayapravesa of Dignaga. I 
received the proof after I had delivered my lectures 
and before I sent him my manuscript for criticism. 

When the lectures had been delivered, I sent copy 
of my lectures and translation of the relevant chapters 
for his criticism which he had the great kindness to send 
me freely and fully, for which I am specially grateful to 
him. It is matter for great regret to me that we cannot 
bring ourselves to agree in regard to the main thesis of the 
relation between book XXIX of the Manimekhalai and 
the treatises of Dignaga on Logic. I have re-considered 
the position on the basis of his criticism and I regret 
very much indeed that I am not able to see eye to eye 
with him on this particular point. This examination of 
the learned Professor’s critical remarks is appended to 
my lectures. None the less, I feel deeply indebted to 
him for the time and trouble that he bestowed upon a 
careful study of the manuscript and giving me the benefit 
of his views thereon in a letter concluding with ‘it is 
my sincere opinion that by making accessible to scholars 



at large the contents of the “Manimekhalai”, specially by 
a faithful translation of the chapters bearing on Indian 
Philosophy and Buddhism, you are entitled to the grati- 
tude and admiration of all who take an interest in Indian 
culture and the history of South India It is to be hoped 
that the work will serve the purpose so well indicated 
by the Professor, and I seek no more reward than that 
for the labour that I have been able to bestow upon it. 

I acknowledge with ple^isure my obligations to the 
Publishers, Messrs. Luzac and Co., Oriental and Foreign 
Book-sellers, London, and to the Diocesan Press, Madras 
the Printers, for the careful printing and excellent get-up 
•of the work. Mr. A. V. Venkatar%pia Aiyar, M.A., L.T., 
Curator, Madras Records, read the final proof ; and Mr. 
R. Gopalam, M.A., of the Connemara Library prepared 
the index at a time when I was badly in need of assist- 
ance owing to inconveniences and ill health. I acknow- 
ledge with gratitude the valuable and timely assistance 
they gave me on this as on other occasions. The Madras 
School Book and Literature Society, on the motion of 
their President, the Rev. Canon Sell, have resolved 
to bear a part of the expenses of publication of this 
work. I acknowledge this assistance with pleasure and 



Vi|Ayai5asami, October 6th, 1927, 

Marine Villa, Madras University. 




Preface ... 


Errata ... 






••• • 



The Poem 



j j 

Its Historical Character 



Historical Conclusions 




Its Philosophical Systems 



Other *^ViEWS on 










Book I 




,, III 

... ... 









„ VI 




.. VII 

... ... 





„ IX 



.. X 


„ XI 





. . • 



... •*» 


„ XIV 



„ XV 



„ XVI 

... ... 

• a. 





. ^ . 

■ • • 


„ XIX 




... ... 





... •». 







Book XXIII ... ... 172 

„ XXIV ... 175 

„ XXV 180 

„ XXVI ... 186 

„ XXVII 189 

„ XXVIII 199 

„ XXIX 204 

„ KXX ... ... 221 

Index ... ... ... ... ... ... 231 




Page Line Error 

1 3 for Valaiyapti 

read Valayapati 




crticising ,, 




» » 


The ^ 


n* 2 

» > 

xxviii p. 172 ,, 

xxviii, 1. 172 



> ) 

^angan • ,, 





Set ,, 




is ,, 




> > 

9 1 9 




Radran Kannan ,, 

Rudran Kanpan 



} 1 

achievements ,, 


1 1 



Palaiyan ,, 

Palaiyan , 



1 ) 





1 1 

Tripa^ur ,, 




> } 

the first two ,, 

the first two, Tantra K&n^a 

] ] 


i 3 

(books 13 to 16) ,, 

(books 15 and 16). 




Indian Philosophy ,, 

Indian Philosophy, 


3 inset 

in theoretical , , 

in the theoretical 



3 3 

already explained ,, 

already been explained 



3 3 





3 3 

and accompanied ,, 

and, accompanied 



3 3 

vast , , 




» 3 

and seeing , , 

and, seeing 



3 3 

in a manner ,, 

in the manner 



3 3 

Then , , 

“ Then 



3 3 





3 3 

unfurl ,, 

strike sail 



3 3 

and entering ,, 

and, entering 



3 3 

women ,, 




3 3 

had fallen ,, 

had befallen 



3 3 





is a eternal ,, 

is eternal. 



3 3 

Asray a-sid d ham , , 

A§raya-asiddham m 



3 3 

Uapiyika- , , 




3 3 


, Ubh- 



3 3 

make ,, 




3 3 

contradictory > 

, contrary 

Itis matter for regret that a certain number of errors in 
diacritical marks escaped correction in proof. They are not included in the 
errata as being too obvious. 



In the following lectures I have attempted to consider 
first of all the question what the position of Manime- 
khalai is among the Tamil classics generally aisd how 
far the general judgment of •the Tamil literary public 
that it is one among the five great classics is justifiable 
on grounds of literary merit and general classical ex- 
cellence. As such, it was necessary to consider whether 
it could be regarded aǤangam work, and if so, in what 
particular sense of the term, whether as a work which 
was presented to the Sangam and which received the 
Sangam imprimatur, or whether it should be taken 
to be merely a literary work of classic excellence, as 
often-times the expression is used in that sense in later 
Tamil literature. The investigation and enquiry into 
Tamil literary tradition leads to the conclusion that it 
is a work of classic excellence in Tamil literature and 
may be regarded as a Sangam work in that sense. We 
have no information that it was ever presented to the 
Sangam, although, according to Tamil tradition, the 
author was one of the Sangam 49, and, being so close ^o 
the age of the Sangam itself, it may be spoken of appro- 
priately as a Sangam work, though not presented to 
the Sangam. . 

This position receives additional support in tlie 
contents of the two works, which constitute a twin 
Epic, namely, Silappadhikaram-Manimekhalai. The 
subject-matter of the two is one continuous story, and 
describes what befell a householder and his wife of the 
city of Puhar, and, as a consequence, the renunciation 




of the daughter of the hero of her life as the first courtezan 
of the Chola capital. The author of the one is des- 
cribed to us as the brother of the contemporary Chera 
ruler, Senguttuvan, a Sangam celebrity, and the author 
of the other is similarly introduced to us as a personal 
and admiring friend of the Chera sovereign and his 
ascetic younger brother. Other details of a contemporary 
characfer introduced in the story, all of them, are 
referable to incidents wljich find mention in relation to 
various rulers of the Tamil land in the Sangam classics. 
Thus the mere external circumstances and the few 
details that we possess of the life and life-time of the 
authors, as well as the Tamil tr^ition that the author 
of the Manimekhalai himself was one of the Sangam 49, 
all alike seem to tend to the conclusion that the work was 
a product of the age which may be generally described 
as' the age of the Sangam, that is, the age of Senguttu- 
van Chera as the dominant ruler of South India. 

Tamil early adopted a system of grammar, and so far 
as literary productions in the language go, follow the 
prevalent system of grammar and rhetoric. As such 
these works do not lend themselves exactly to that kind 
of investigation of a linguistic and philological character 
which could be more appropriately adopted in regard to 
works where the language is more flexible and has not 
attained to the classic fixity of an accepted system of 
grammar. But it still lends itself to a certain amount 
of investigation as a work of literature, and such an 
investigation clearly reveals the intimate connection 
between the Silappadhikaram and the Manimekhalai it- 
self as literary works, products of a single age, a single 
tradition, and of a very similar atmosphere. If compari- 
sons are made of these with genuine Sangam classics 
themselves, the similarity is no less pronounced, apart 




from the similarity of historical matter and of geogra- 
phical sorroundings. Thus from the point of view of 
literary criticism, we have good reason for regarding 
these as classics of Tamil, which may be treated as of 
the same literary character as Sangam works. 

The historical and geographical details which can 
be gathered round a character like Senguttuvan Chera, 
and just a few others who happen to figure ip. these 
romantic poems, when carefuy.y collected and collaborat- 
ed, tell the same tale of contemporaneity between the 
works themselves and between the two works and other 
Sangam works so-called. Specific instances of histo- 
rical incidents are d^alt with in full detail in the lec- 
tures themselves. We need hardly do more here than 
merely to point out that the four capitals of Puhar, 
Madura, Vanji, and Kan chi occur in the poem. Their 
condition and the rulers that held sway over them are 
described incidentally in the course of the story, and 
these admit of definite treatment in comparison with the 
condition of these capitals, as we find them described in 
the Sangam works. One point which clinches the matter 
and provides a definite test of the age is that through- 
out the story as narrated in these two works, Kanchi 
remained a viceroyalty under the authority of the Cholas, 
who, under Karikala, are credited uniformly by Tatoil 
tradition with having civilized this land and brought it 
into the pale of Tamil civilization. Without going into 
too much detail here, it may be said that the pountry 
round Kanchi which became peculiarly the territory* of 
the Pallavas, remained under Chola rule, and a Chola, 
a prince of the blood very often, held the viceroyalty. 
The one remarkable change for which we have evidence 
in the Sangam works is the placing of this viceroyalty 
in the hands of aTondaman chiesf by name Ilarh-Tirayan. 




This took place in the last period of the age of the 
Sangam from the evidence of the Sangam literature 
itself. In the classics with which we are concerned, 
there is no evidence of our having reached the stage 
when Kanchi was under the rule of Tondaman-Ilarh- 
Tirayan ; nor have we any vestige of evidence that would 
justify the assumption that the Tondaman chief had 
ruled aijd passed away. Other historical details can be 
recited in number. It is Jiardly necessary to take up 
those details here, which are discussed elsewhere in the 
course of this work and in other works of ours. The 
conclusion to which we are, therefore, irresistibly 
driven is that we are in an age wh^n the Sangam activity 
had not yet ceased, and this view is in full accord with 
all the evidence available regarding the Sangam and its 
age in the vast mass of literature in which that evidence 
lies scattered. 

Our main purpose in this thesis has been to consider 
what light the philosophical systems and the religious 
condition of the country as described in the Manime- 
khalai throw upon this important question of the 
age of the work itself and of the Sangam literature 
generally. It is with a view to this that the examination 
was actually suggested by Professor Jacobi and was 
tak'en up by ourselves. The chapters bearing upon the 
questions are three, namely, books XXVII, XXIX and 
XXX. Book XXVII discusses the heretical systems from 
the point of view of orthodox Buddhism. Mani- 
mekhalai discusses, with orthodox professors of the 
various schools, the tenets of their particular systems on 
the basis of their authoritative works with a view to 
learn what exactly they might have to teach. She begins 
with a discussion of the Pramanas applicable generally as 
instruments of knowledge, and, under the general group- 


ing Vaidikavada, five separate systems are described, 
all acknowledging the authority of the Veda. The 
first statement of importance contained in this particular 
part has relation to pramaims as applied to the V aidika 
system. Three authorities are mentioned, Vedavyasa, 
Jaimini and Krtakoti. Of these, the first is said to have 
formulated ten pramanas, of which the second rejected 
four and accepted only six. The third one, however, 
seems to have accepted eight and rejected only two of 
the ten. After a detailed discussion of the prammias 
and what they are, the discussion winds up with the 
conclusion that the prammias current at the time are six, 
and they applied aljke to the six systems commonly 
recognized as such. The six prammias as given are, 
Pratyaksha, Anumana, Sabda, Upamana, Arthapatti, 
and Abhava. The six systems held as orthodox are 
Lokayatam, Bauddham, Sankyam, Naiyayikam,Vaiseshi- 
kam, Mimamsam, with the respective authors, Brhaspati, 
Jina, Kapila, Akshapada, Kanada, and Jaimini. In this 
recital of six, the omission of Jainism is interesting, but 
may be understood as being due to its not following the 
Vaidika pramafzas. While Nyaya and Vaiseshika are 
both of them mentioned. Yoga is not mentioned along 
with Sankya. Bauddham is mentioned as a religion to 
which these pramanas were applicable, and that ffe in 
accordance with the opinion that the Bauddhas from 
Buddha onwards to Vasubandhu adopted the system of 
Akshapada, and perhaps other teachers of the ^ramana 
Vada likewise. Mimamsa is mentioned as one SSfetra 
ascribed to Jaimini, not as two as in later times and in 
orthodox parlance it had come to be recognized. This 
leaves out the Brahma Kanda of Vyasa. Apart from this 
general system of prama'^s^ others from whom she at- 
tempted to learn their tenets weie Saivavadi,Brahmavadi, 




Vaishnavavadi and Veda VMi. At the end of the book, 
in summing up the totality of the systems she attempted 
to learn she includes these first five as one. The next 
following two, the teaching of the Ajivaka and that of 
the Nirgrantha she apparently counts as one. The 
chapter winds up with the statement that thus she had 
learnt from their respective teachers the five systems, 
and Mi,nimekhalai herself repeats the statement later 
when she mentions it to A^avana Adigal that she had 
learnt the five systems according to their authoritative 
texts from those who had specially studied them, in book 
XXIX. This kind of a reference to the five heretical 
systems makes it clear that at tha^ime there was a fixed 
notion that six were regarded as the prevalent systems to 
which from the point of view of the Buddhists five were 
heretical. Including the orthodox Buddhist system, it 
made up six, and therefore, we are justified in regarding 
the six systems as those referred to as current by Manime- 
khalai herself in an earlier place. The points of import- 
ance for our investigation in this chapter are that the 
six accepted Vaidikapranianas applied even to Buddhism, 
that Buddhism regarded itself as within the fold of 
Vaidika pyamanas^ such as Jainism was not. The 
Mimarhsa is regarded as a single system as yet, while the 
Yoga system had not been known, at any rate had 
not become a recognized system in this part of the 
country. The later recognition that two pramanas were 
alone vg,lid by the Buddhists, namely, Pratyaksha and 
AimmSna, had not yet been adopted exclusively as a 
cardinal doctrine of Buddhism. 

Passing on to chapter xxix, we are here introduced to 
a system of Buddhist logic where the teaching of the Bud- 
dhists assumes more definite shape and is in the course of 
the full definition to which it attained under Dignaga- 



charya. Here the author puts the Buddhist teaching of 
logic in the mouth of Aravana Adigal, introduced as a 
Buddhist saint of the highest reputation in the Tamil 
country at the time. The chapter begins with saying 
that the highest authority for the system is Jinendra, the 
Buddha, and that the pramatias are actually only two, 
Pratyaksha and Anumana. After defining these two, a 
general statement is put in that all the other pzai^ia-nas 
are capable of inclusion ,in Anumana. Then we 
are led to the five avayavas or organs of syllogism, 
Pratigna (proposition), (2) Hetu (reason), (3) Drishtanta 
or Udaharana (example), (4) Upanaya (application) and 
(5) Nigamana (conclusion). After having defined and 
illustrated the first three, the last two are passed over 
as being capable of inclusion in Drishtanta. Then 
follows a further discussion that these three could be 
valid and invalid, and the sub-division of each one of 
them is given with illustrations. Thus we are taken 
through a regular course of logic, the purpose of the 
cultivation of which is stated to be, at the end of the 
chapter, that by means of the validity of reasoning and its 
invalidity, one may understand that which is truth from 
that which is other than truth. In the details that are 
given of the whole discussion and in the general trend of 
the discussion itself, the Manimekhalai seems to u% to 
follow the prevalent teaching of logic current in Kanchi 
at the time. From Kanchi however, there hailed a 
logician of great reputation, known by the name, of Dig- 
naga, who wrote, according to Chinese authority, a nlim- 
ber of treatises on the subject, and thereby had become 
the athoritative teacher of the system. Some of his works 
have been continuously in use as text-books in China, and 
from a somewhat later period, in Tibet. They were 
apparently in use in India as well, but had long since 



gone out of use. Within the last twenty years some of 
these have been recovered by various scholars, Chinese, 
Tibetan, Indian and European of various nationalities. 
The best known works of this Dignaga are Pramana- 
samucchaya and Nyayapravesa. These are sometimes 
criticized in commentaries by Brahmanical commentators 
as well as Jain, and, needless to say, quoted with appro- 
val and elaborated by Buddhist commentators. The two 
works quoted above constitute the final authoritative 
texts of this author on the subject, of which the Nyaya- 
pravesa seems from the information available to us at 
present, the fuller. For our purpose the similarity 
between this work of Dignaga and chapter xxix of the 
Manimekhalai runs through all details, and even the 
examples happen to be the same. This is nothing 
surprising as, in the treatment of technical subjects like 
this, examples are chosen for their peculiar aptness and 
all teachers accept them generally for purposes of illus- 
tration. Having regard to the great reputation that 
Dignaga has achieved as a logician, it may seem a natural 
inference that a poet like the author of the Manimekhalai 
should have borrowed the teaching from a treatise like the 
Nyayapravesa. Notwithstanding the closeness of simi- 
larity, there are a few points in which the Manimekhalai 
treatment of the subject seems to mark a transition from, 
it may be, the Naiyayikas to the teaching of Dignaga 
himself, particularly so in the two points to which atten- 
tion had^been drawn, namely, in the statement that the 
frafnams are only two, others being capable of inclusion 
in the second, Anumana ; the reference is obviously made 
to the other four pramEnas out of the six already referred 
to as current at the time and applicable to the six systems 
in book XXVII. We have no right to interpret the other 
pramwitas there as any other than the four of the six, to 


which the work made explicit reference in book XXVII, 
whereas Dignaga seems to have no such qualms, and 
actually deals with the four pramaiias of the Naiyayikas, 
retains the first two, and rejects the other two, after 
examination, positively. Similarly in the discussion of 
the avayavas, the Manimekhalai seems to mark a transi- 
tion. It mentions the five amyams, accepts the three, 
and does not consider the other two as they are Capable 
of inclusion in the third. There is nothing like the re- 
jection of these as invalid as in the case of Dignaga. 
Then there is a third point. Dignaga solemnly lays him- 
self out to consider the Svartha and Parartha form of 
syllogism, that is, sy^^-logistic ratiocination with a view 
to convincing oneself, and with a view to convincing 
others. After a serious discussion, he comes to the con- 
clusion that the latter being included in the former, it is 
superfluous to treat of it separately. To the Manimekhalai, 
it does not seem necessary to discuss the latter at all. In 
regard to the Paksha-abhasas discussed, the Nyaya- 
pravesa is supposed to make a new classification and 
describes nine which are found described almost in the 
same terms in the Manimekhalai itself. 

Here comes in a discussion which may seem alien to 
the course of this argument, but which, as will be noticed, 
has an important and vital bearing on the question itself. 
Who is the author of the Nyayapravesa ? The text of the 
Nyayapravesa not having been available, there were two 
clearly divided schools of thought, one of them regarding 
the Nyayapravesa, both in the Tibetan and Chinese 
version as well as the now available Sanskrit version, 
is the work of Dignaga; another school, basing itself 
chiefly on an examination of the Chinese originals, 
regards it as the work of Dignaga’s immediate disciple 
Sankarasvamin. Without goiifg into the arguments 



which will be found elsewhere, we may state it here that 
although Buddhist tradition had known of Sankarasvamin 
as the disciple of Dignaga, no authority bearing on 
Buddhist literature has mentioned a work, Nyayapravesa 
ascribing it to Sankarasvamin as the author. It is now 
clear that the Nyayapravesa was ascribed to Sankara- 
svamin very early in China, and that the work had been 
constantly in use there. There is no^ mention, however, 
of Nyayapravesa as the work of Sankarasvamin any- 
where in the works of Hiuen T’sang among treatises on 
logic which were being studied by students at the 
schools and Universities in India. I’tsing who gives a 
complete list does not mention tl?^ Nyayapravesa as the 
work of a Sankarasvamin, but seems to mention it, not 
perhaps exactly in the same form, as the work of 
Dignaga himself. So the work may well have to be 
regarded as the work of Dignaga, which his disciple 
Sankarasvamin perhaps taught and his teaching spread 
into China, and gave him the reputation of being the 
author of the work. But whether the Nyayapravesa is 
the work of Dignaga himself, as we prefer to take it, or 
whether it should turn out to be the work of Sankara- 
svamin, actually his disciple, it does not materially affect 
our question, as the difference of time could be hardly a 
generation. The real question is whether the Nyaya- 
pravesa is copied in the Manimekhalai or, as we take it, 
whether the Manimekhalai marks a transition between 
the Naiyayikas and the Nyayapravesa of Dignaga. In 
the latter alternative, the date of the work could be much 
earlier than A.D. 400; and in the former alternative 
it must be held decisively to be a work of the fifth 
century at the earliest. We have good reason for regard- 
ing Manimekhalai as a work anterior to Dignaga, and 
we shall see that it is in a way supported by what the 


work has to say actually of ; Buddhism in the following 

In book XXX the author of the Manimekhalai lays 
himself out to give the actual teaching of the Buddha 
‘ according to the Pitakas and gives a clear but succinct 
statement of the main Buddhistic theory of the ‘ Four 
Truths ‘ the twelve Nidanas and the means of 
getting to the correct knowledge, which ukimately 
would put an end to ‘ Beiisig There is here none of 
the features that the later schools of Buddhism indicate, 
so that we cannot exactly label the Buddhism contained 
in book XXX as of this school or that precisely. It may 
be said, however, tt^be of the Sthaviravada and of the 
Sautrantika school of Buddhism, which seems to be the 
form in vogue in this part of the country, and coming in 
for much criticism later. This position is, to some ex- 
tent, supported by the expression used in the text itself 
elsewhere that it is the ‘ Path of the Pitakas of the Great 
One ’. Even in this abridged form, it is not without 
points that indicate a transition similar to those indicated 
in book XXIX. There is nothing that may be regarded as 
referring to any form of Mahayana Buddhism, particu- 
larly the ^unyavada as formulated by Nagarjuna. One 
way of interpreting this silence would be that Nagarjuna’s 
teaching as such of the ^unyavada had not yet 
travelled to the Tamil country to be mentioned in con- 
nection with the orthodox teaching of Buddhism or to be 
condemned as unorthodox. This is to some, extent 
confirmed by the fact that in referring to the soul, the 
reference in book XXX seems clearly to be to the indivi- 
dual soul, not to, the universal Soul, which seems to be a 
development of the so-called Satyasiddhi school which 
came a little later. These points support the view to 
which we were led in our study rif the previous books, 



and thus make the work clearly one of a date anterior to 
Dignaga, and not posterior. 

This general position to which we have been led by 
our own study of the philosophical systems, though at 
variance with the views to which Professor Jacobi has 
arrived on the same material, cannot by itself be held 
decisive of the age of the Tamil classic. This question 
has to be settled actually on other grounds, of which we 
have indicated the genqjral position in some detail 
already. Kanchi is referred to as under the rule of the 
Cholas yet, and the person actually mentioned as 
holding rule at the time was the younger brother of the 
Chola ruler for the time being, i^ainst this viceroyalty 
an invasion was undertaken by the united armies of the 
Cheras and the Pandyas which left the Chera capital 
Vanji impelled by earth hunger and nothing else, and 
attacked the viceroyalty. The united armies were 
defeated by the princely viceroy of the Cholas who 
presented to the elder brother, the monarch, as spoils 
of war, the umbrellas that he captured on the field of 
battle. This specific historical incident which is des- 
cribed with all the precision of a historical statement in 
the work must decide the question along with the other 
historical matter, to which we have already adverted. 
N (5 princely viceroy of the Chola was possible in Kanchi 
after A.D. 300, from which period we have a continuous 
succession of Pailava rulers holding sway in the region. 
Once fhe Pallavas had established their position in 
Kanchi, their neighbours in the west and the north had 
become others than the Cheras. From comparatively 
early times, certainly during the fifth century, the 
immediate neighbours to the west were the Gangas, and 
a little farther to the west by north were the Kadambas, 
over both of whom the Pallavas claimed suzerainty 

^ iNTfe-ODtrctlON xxiifc 

readily recognized by the other parties. This position 
is not reflected in the Manimekhalai or Silappadhikaram. 
Whereas that which we find actually and definitely stated 
is very much more a reflection of what is derivable from 
purely Sangam literature so-called. This general position 
together with the specific datum of the contemporaneity 
of the authors to Senguttuvan Chera must have the 
decisive force. Other grounds leading to a similar con- 
clusion will be found in , our other works :• — ^The 
Augustan Age of Tamil Literature (Ancient India, 
chapter xiv), The Beginnings of South Indian History 
and The Contributions of South India to Indian Culture^ 
The age of the Sanga.m must be anterior to that of the 
Pallavas, and the age of the Manimekhalai and Silappadhi- 
karam, if not actually referable as the works of the 
Sangam as such, certainly is referable to the period in 
the course of the activity of the Sangam. 


[By Prof^ H. Jacobi to his article for the Plultzsch Jttbtlee 

number of the ‘ Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranis tikJ) 


I HAD induced Professor Krishnaswami Aiyangar some 
years ago to undertake the full and correct translation of 
those portions of the Manimekhalai which dealt with 
Indian philosophical systems, so that it may serve as a 
basis to fix the age o|,,that work with greater probability. 
As I heard nothing further about this project it seemed 
to me that its execution was postponed to an indefinite 
future. Thereupon I thought that I ought not to delay 
the publication of what I had got up about the age of 
this work from out of the translation by Kanakasabhai. 
The result is the above contribution to the Jubilee num- 
ber intended for Hultzsch.^ When my contribution was 
ready for the press, Professor Krishnaswami Aiyangar 
wrote to me that he had translated the chapters 
of the Manimekhalai relating to the philosophy and 
on April lo, 1926, I received a type- written copy 
of his translation of the Chapters 27 and 29. “ In 
the light of these more correct reproduction of the 
original many of the obscurities of Kanakasabhai’s 
translation were cleared up, to mention which in detail 
here would be to digress. Nevertheless I may here*set 
down briefly the most important of the chief points of my 

^ I am obliged to Mr. R. Gopalan, m.a., Sub-Librarian, Connemara 
Public Library and Mr. S. T. Krishnamacliaryar, b.a., b.l., High Court 
Vakil, for the translation of this Supplement. 

^ ‘ Zeitschrift fur'Indologie und Iranistik/ : Band 5 Hft 3 of theDeutsch 
Morgalandissche Gesselle.schaft (Leipzig). 



earlier deduction — the acquaintance of the author of 
Manimekhalai with Dignaga’s philosophy. First of all 
I can assert with satisfaction that I have correctly in- 
terpreted the confusing and distorted passages dealing 
with perception and the condition for the conclusiveness 
of an argument, and have referred to the respective 
theories of Dignaga. The definition of Pratyaksha reads 
in the Iiew translation; — ‘name {namd), class ijati), 
quality {£una), and action, {kriya) are excluded from 
this, viz. perception, as they are obtainable from in- 
ference {cmumUnd). That corresponds as I have indi- 
cated above to Dignaga’s doctrine. The passage on the 
three conditions of conclusive reason reads (in chapter 
29) ‘ the reason (hetti) is of three kinds : — (i) ‘ being 
attributive of the subject ; (2) becoming attributable to a 
similar subject, and (3) becoming not attributable to the 

opposite, . Thereupon follows the definition of 

Sapakshaand Vipaksha (similar subject and the opposite). 
This passage of the trairupya of the linga forms the basis 
of Dignaga’s system of logic, whereby the logic of the 
Nyaya system shows itself far superior and as is well 
known has acquired considerable influence over the 
further development of Indian logic. There is thus no 
doubt that the author of Manimekhalai knew of Dignaga’s 
doctrine of cognizance and logic. But we can now go 
an important step further beyond the earlier established 
facts. For in those portions of the 29th chapter of the 
Manimekhalai which Kanakasabhai has not translated, 
the Buddhistic system of logic is expounded, and is quite 
in strict agreement with the contents of the Nyayapravesa 
as it is known to us through an analysis of the Chinese 
translation of that work by Sadajiro Sugiura,’' and the 

Hindu Logic as preserved in China, Japan, Philadelphia, 1900, 

chapter iy, 



Tibetan translation by Satischandra Vidyabhushana.* 
The Sanskrit original has been already under print for 
some time for the Gaek wad’s Oriental Series, but has not 
come out till now. As Mironow^ shows it is the original 
of the Tibetan translation which Vidyabhushana has 
analysed. The agreement of the theories of logic in the 
29th chapter of the Manimekhalai with that of the Nyaya- 
pravesa rises to almost complete similarity in the passage 
on the ‘ fallacious paksa^ hetu^ and drstUnta. There are 
found the same nine paksabhasas^io\x.x\&^'nhetvabhasas‘3^!xdL 
ten drshtantabhasas in the same arrangement and almost 
through the same series^ in the Manimekhalai as in the 
Nyayapravesa. Even the examples instanced for the 
purposes of explanation agree in most cases in both. It 
is thus established without any doubt that the author of 
the Manimekhalai has made, use of the Nyayapravesa in 
a most evident manner. 

The author of the Nyayapravesa is, according to the 
Chinese tradition which Sugiura follows, Sankarasvamin, 
a pupil of Dignaga, but according to the Tibetan tradi- 
tion, which does not know Sankarasvamin at all, it is 
Dignaga, hence Vidyabhushana also names him as the 
author. But that is an error as M. Tubianski'*' has 
shown. Dignaga is the author of the Nyayadvara (pre- 
served in the Chinese translation), a small and very terse 
work. Sankarasvamin has stated in an extremely clear 
way the system of logic contained therein, in the Nyaya- 
pravesa, probably with some embellishments.® Owing 

^ History of the Mediceval School of Indian Logic ^ Calcutta, 1909, pp. 
89 ff. 

® Sjee Garbe-Festschifte, p. 38 ff. 

® Thus the 3 and 4 paksdbhdsa are transposed. 

* Bulletin de P Academic de V U,R,S.S*, 1926, p. 975 ff. 

* Sugiura 1 c. p. 61 says that Dignaga treats only of five pak^ddhdsas ; 

to these Sankara added the 4 latter. ^ 


to the excellence of its exposition the Nyayapravesa has 
become manifestly the most popular compendium of 
Lddhistic logic.' The Jain Haribhadra also has 
written a commentary thereto and the authoi of the 
Manimekhalai has made it the basis of his exposition o 
Buddhist logic. The latter fact is, under the present 
circumstances, of importance in reference to chrono ogy, 
as thereby the upper limit of the composition of the 
Manimikhalai is shifted at least one generation lower 
down and certainly well in !he sixth century ^ter Christ 
But it is another question whether the age ot 
Sangam literature is thereby fixed. For as Knshnaswami 
Ayyangar declares, though indeed the author of the 
Manirrfekhalai belongs to the Sangam Academy his 
uoem is not of the works recognized by them. The 
decision of the savants of Tamil literature is incumbent 
on what can be gathered from these traditions. 


Since the book had been almost completely prmted, 1 had the 
bents oYreading through Professor Tucci’s article ; Is Nyaya- 
nravesabv Dignaga’ in the Jmirnal ot the Royal Aeiatu- Society 
S Januan- 1928. In this article the Professor takes up Ae 
Question as” in the article of Tubianski, and gives it as his opinion 
decisively that the work Nyayapravesa is the work of bankaia- 
svamin, and that the work of Dignaga nearest akin to itis _a woi 
called Nyayamukha, as several of the quotations criticmed by 
Kumarila and Parthasarathi Misra as from Dignaga are found in 
the work Nyayamukha. What is more, the professor points out 
that the work of Dignaga actually contains only five Paksha- 
abkasas quoted ia this order 

(1) Suvachana Viruddham. 

(2) Agama Viruddham. 

(3) Loka Viruddham. 

(4) Pratyaksha Viruddham. 

(5) Anumaaa Viruddham. 

^ Cf. Sttgiural. c. p. 36 ff. 


In the Nyayapravesa, on the contrary, four more are added 
namely : — 

(6) Aprasiddha Viseshanam. 

(7) Aprasiddha Viseshyam. 

(8) Aprasiddha Ubhayam. 

(9) Prasiddha Sambandham. 

These four are criticized by Chinese commentators like 
Shemt’ai, as being superfluous additions. In regard to the last 
of these there is also found an error that the dbhdsa actually 
referred to must be Apraszddka-SB.mhsLn6.ham and not Ih'asiddha- 
Sambandham as it is given. It i^ very interesting to note here 
that the Manimekhalai gives these Paksha-abhasas as Aprasiddha- 
Sambandham in the correct form. The Manimekhalai gives all, 
the nine Paksha-abhasas in this order : — 

(1) Pratyaksha Viruddham. 

(2) Anumana Vii^hdham. 

(3) Suvachana Viruddham. 

(4) Loka Viruddham. 

(5) Agama Viruddham. 

(6) Aprasiddha Viseshanam. 

(7) Aprasiddha Viseshyam. 

(8) Aprasiddha Ubhayam. 

(9) Aprasiddha Sambandham. 

The other commentator Kwei-chi similarly comments : — 

‘ Dignaga established only these five Abkasas, and Sankarasvamin 
added the other four,' meaning the first five and the next four 

In regard to the argument of Vidusekhara Batfacharya that 
Sankarasvamin' s name is not mentioned by Hiuen T’sang, pro- 
fessor Tucci does not regard the objection decisive on the 
following grounds : — 

(1) That Hiuen T’sang translated the work under the 
name of Sankarasvamin. 

(2) That both the commentators Kwei-chi and §hen4’ai 
received all their information about this work on logic from the 
great Chinese traveller and nobody else, so that the information 
that they give is to be regarded as that for which the authority 
of the great traveller could be taken for granted. 


Manimekhalai as a poem is included zmdng the 
five great kavyas of Tamil literature, the other four being 
Chintamani, Silappadhikaram, Valaiyapti and Kundala- 
kesi. As a peruThkappiyam (Sans. ; Mahakavyd) it must 
satisfy certain requirements. It must treat of the life 
story of a hero preferably, or a heroine, fully and this 
involves the necessity of beginning with the parentage 
and birth of the hero or the heroine, and tracing his or 
her life through all the stages to the threshold of the life 
hereafter. It must, therefore, subserve the four puru- 
shartas or ends of existence, Aram, Pond, Inbam, Vldu, 
or Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. Therefore it is to 
be a self-contained work, a heroic poem dealing with the 
life of the hero in its entirety. The first question that 
would arise, therefore, is whether the poem Manimekha- 
lai answers to this description of a perumkuppiyam. 
The answer to this question, on the face of it, is that it 
does not, although it may be possible perhaps also" to 
say that it actually does. It may be said to answer to 
the description of a perumkappiyam inasmuch as the 
story begins practically with the beginning of the life of 
Manimekhalai, not without hints and allusions to her 
birth and early life. It takes her through all the inci- 
dents of her worldly life till she attains to the ripeness 
of entering the Buddhist cloister as a nun. This last 
step puts an end, in orthodox Buddhist belief as also to 
a great extent in the Hindu, to her earthly life. 


Interpreted in this manner, it can be regarded that the 
work is a complete picture of the life of the heroine, and 
therefore answers to the description of a great ksvya. 

It may, however, be objected that very many of the 
incidents of her early life are passed over with brief hints 
and allusions, that her parentage cannot be said in any 
manner to be treated in this work, and as such it falls 
short of the requirements of a kcLvya. This objection 
finds some justification in» the work being known not 
Manimekhalai uniformly. It is described as Manime- 
khalaituravu in the prologue to the poem. Besides this, 
the work is said to be referred to in the commentary of 
Nilakesi, as Manimekhalaituravu ako. If so the subject 
may be described as ‘ the renunciation of Manimekhalai ’, 
and therefore the subject of the poem would be only that 
part of Manimekhalai’s life which refers to her renun- 
ciation of worldly life. The learned Editor of the work 
states that he called it Manimekhalar4m*'itije'reason that 
theX^nie has been found to be used generally in that 
form. It therefore cannot be said that the position that 
by itself it is not a mahakavyahzs not some tenable argu- 
mentito support it in itself. This position finds further 
suppoi\t in the Silappadhikaram, which, in its concluding 
portioi|. states that the story of Manimekhalai completes 
the subject matter of the poem Silappadhikaram. This 
positi(ym is taken up by the commentator of the latter 
Adiyfirkkunallar. He lays it down that a kappiyam 
mi^^t subserve the four main ends of life, and propounds 
tMie question that the Silappadhikaram stops with the 
first three and does not appear to treat separately of the 
fourth. He gives a number of references in .the course 
of the work to the renunciation of Manimekhalai and 
‘ concludes that having learnt that Manimekhalai had 
renounced life, the atithor of the ^ilap|)adhika.ram, 

I'HE poem 


Ilango-Adigal, set this at the end of his own work, and 
wished to treat the complete work as a mahakmya 
treating of the four objects of life. When he communi- 
cated his resolution to Sattan, his friend, Sattan told 
him m reply that he had already composed a work on 
Manimekhalai making her renunciation the subject, and 
illustrative of the two main objects of life, Dharma and 
Moksha. Ilangb wished that the two should fin^ vogue 
in the world as one kavya. Notwithstanding this, these 
are regarded as two because two authors composed 

This position of the commentator finds support in the 
prologue to the Manimekhalai which in lines 95 and 96 
states that the author Sattan read the thirty poems 
composing Manimekhalai, and Ilang 5 -Adiga| listened to 
the work with great kindness. The prologue to the 
Silappadhikaram likewise refers in lines i o and 1 1 that 
when the hunters came and reported what they saw to 
I}ang5, Sattan took up the tale, and described the whole 
of the story, as it took place, having heard it in certain, 
at any rate, of its divisions from the Goddess Madhura- 
pati, when he was lying asleep in the hall of V dliyam- 
balam on that night when the Goddess appeared to 
Kannaki and told her why things happe^ned as they did. 
Further down in the prologue to this Silappadhikaram, 
as the jewel Silambu was what brought about the 
tragedy, to illustrate, that to those that erred in admi- 
nistration, righteousness will prove the cause of death, 
that to women of chastity, the praise of the discerrftng 
good people is the reward, and that the consequences of 
one’s action will inevitably take effect on him ‘ might 
well be written by us Sattan said in reply that, as 
the work related to incidents in which the three kings 
of the Tamil land were parties, Ilango himself might 

4 ma^imekhalai 

compose the work. Ilang5 agreed and recited the work, 
which, in his turn, Sattan heard with appreciation. 
These details and the contemporaneity of the authors 
are so far in evidence in the prologues and the epilogues 
only. We shall return to this question later. All that 
is to our purpose at present is that the two works are 
here regarded as constituting one great k^vya, though 
they are the work of two separate authors; they were 
treated as two works tjjough constituting a single 

The scope of the work and its character alike show 
great affinity to the Silappadhikaram. Though the 
two form a heroic poem, there i^ something of the 
dramatic element running through them, and the narra- 
tive is incomplete unless the two could be taken 
together. Manimekhalai itself begins actually with 
Manimekhalai having already attained to the charms of 
maidenhood and being the object of affection to the 
Chola prince, the heir-apparent of the reigning Chola 
monarch. The subject matter of the whole poem there- 
fore is the efforts of the prince to gain possession of her, 
the resistance that she offered in withstanding this 
temptation and her consistent effort through all suffering 
to hold on to her own resolution, the attaining by her 
to 'the ripeness of mind required for accepting the 
teachings of the Buddha and her renunciation ; these are 
the incidents that receive treatment in the poem. The 
poem opens with the great celebration of the festival to 
InSra. Manimekhalai’ s mother Madhavi had already 
renounced life, and sends the daughter to fetch flowers 
for service; the prince follows her to the garden; 
Manimekhalai is spirited away to the Island of Mani- 
pallavam where she learnt her past life from a miraculous 
Buddha-seat. She returned therefrom again to Kaveri- 



pattinam ; the prince still continues to prosecute his 
love notwithstanding advice against it. He falls by the 
sword of a celestial being, the form of whose wife Mani- 
mekhalai had assumed. Manimekhalai is thrown into 
prison, from which she gets released. She passes 
successfully through all the schemes of the queen to 
bring about her death. She learns the teachings of the 
various systems, and ultimately the orthodox teaching 
of the Buddha from Aravana* Adigal at Kanchi. Such 
being the subject matter of the poem, it is clear that it 
could not be regarded altogether as a mere narrative 
poem of a historical character dealing with the life of the 
individual heroine qpncerned, with anything like a bio- 
graphical aim. It is a poem first and foremost, and 
treats of the subject, whatever be its character, in the 
manner of an epic poem and no more. The subject is 
one intimately connected with religion and that 
introduces its own element of the un-historical in it, 
such as the occurrence of miracles of various kinds. It 
would therefore, on the face of it, be very difficult to 
treat the work as at all of a historical character. His- 
torical characters however are introduced, and, not- 
withstanding the somewhat miraculous character of 
several of the incidents and characters brought upon the 
stage, there is still the possibility of a background" of 
history to it. 

The subject-matter of the works is of a varied 
character. The actual subject itself is the life of a young 
wealthy merchant of Kaveripattinam. He was born of 
a great caravan (mahasarthavaha) merchant, and, as yet 
a young ma^n, was married to the daughter of another 
merchant of similar dignity. The husband and the 
wife, Kovalan and Kannaki, set up separately with the 
active assistance of the parents T)f both to lead the life 



of householders in the city. Kovalan fell in love with a 
dancing woman by name Madhavi, a ravishingly charm- 
ing beauty. He was so infatuated with her as even 
to neglect his comely and chaste wife, and spent away 
not only all his property but even the jewels of his wife. 
At the conclusion of the great Indra festival at Puhar 
(Kaveripattinam), he went out along with Madhavi to 
spend <he day in enjoyment on the seashore. In the 
course of his stay there,, he discovered, at least he 
thought he had discovered, that Madhavi was not per- 
haps quite as sincerely attached to him as he thought 
she was. Somewhat estranged in feeling, he went 
home, and found his wife more tjjjan usually solicitous 
to please him as she observed that he was somewhat 
troubled in mind. In a moment of contrition, he ex- 
plained his position to his wife and regretted that he had 
not the means to set up as merchant again and recover 
his lost wealth as he intended to do in a distant place 
like Madura. Nothing daunted by her previous sacrifices 
in this direction, she offered the only valuable jewel 
yet left with her, that is, the anklet, for him to make 
use of for that purpose. They left the city unknown 
the next morning, early enough not to be discovered, 
and set forward on their journey to Madura. Having 
entered the city, Kbvalan left his wife in charge of a 
shepherdess outside the fort and went into the bazaar of 
the city to sell the jewel. The queen having lost a 
similar jewel some time before, the goldsmith who was 
responsible for the theft and to whom by chance Kovalan 
offered this for sale, reported that he had discovered the 
thief with the jewel in possession. The infatuated 
Pandyan king ordered the recovery of the jeVel from the 
culprit after decapitating the thief as a punishment. 
The virtuous wife got •so indignant at this perpetration 



of injustice that she brought about the destruction of 
the city by fire and passed across the frontier into the 
Chera country before putting an end to herself. There 
the husband was shown to her and the two together 
were taken to the world of gods. Hearing of all this, 
and, on the advice of his councillors, the Chera ruler of 
the country set up an image of the chaste wife in a 
temple which he consecrated to the goddess of Chastity. 
Having heard of this calamity, Madhavi who was whole- 
hearted and sincere in her affection for Kovalan 
renounced life in contrition for her own contribution to 
the tragedy, and became a Buddhist noviciate. She 
had a child by Kovafen, a girl of great beauty. She had 
just reached the age of maidenhood and was so extra- 
ordinarily charming that the Chola prince of Puhar, 
the heir-apparent, set his heart upon her. The work 
Manimekhalai takes up the tale from here and deals with 
the life-history of Manimekhalai to the stage of her early 
renunciation. It will thus be seen that the story of the 
Silappadhikaram really leads up to the story of Mani- 
mekhalai, and is from the point of view of epic propriety 
hardly complete in itself. Similarly the story of Mani- 
mekhalai would be incomplete without the introduction 
that is contained in the story of Silappadhikaram for 
strict epic requirements. 

It will be seen from the above r^sumd that the story 
is laid in the three capitals of Tamil India, Puhar, 
Madura and Vanji, and the hero and the heroine a>e 
taken in the course of the story to all the three capitals. 
Manimekhalai is taken in addition to Kanchi in the 
course of psogress of her life towards renunciation. 
There is, therefore, much scope for the author, if he 
cared for it, to throw in a volume of detail, geographical, 
historical and social in the course of his treatment of 



the story. The main purpose of the author, however, 
so far as Manimekhalai is concerned, and, to some 
considerable extent the Silappadhikaram as well, is the 
exaltation of Buddhism as a religion ; Manimekhalai is 
professedly so, and the Silappadhikaram assumes a more 
general attitude and contributes to this end only in- 
directly. The conscious purpose being the exaltation of 
religion and the characters put on the stage being only 
the means therefor, the poet has still the latitude for 
treating the subject in such a manner as to admit of a 
variety of detail otherwise than of a religious or poetical 
character. If, therefore, it is possible to collect to- 
gether details of a character that could throw light upon 
the condition of the country, what could these details 
lead up to ? The author in dealing with a particular 
subject can deal with it so as to give us an idea of the 
subject and its setting at the time that the incidents of 
the story are believed to have taken place ; or it may be 
that he takes up the story and deals with it so as to draw 
a picture — indirect though it be, of times contemporary 
with himself ; or to trace an entirely imaginary picture 
which has no reality of existence whatsoever. What he 
actually does really depends upon his own sweet will 
and pleasure to some extent. At the same time, a care- 
ful study may give us some notion of what exactly the 
author was about in his treatment of the subject. In 
order to decide what kind of treatment it is that the 
author gives, it would be just as well if we could know 
something of the author and the character of his 

The author of Manimekhalai is stated to be Sattan, 

‘ the grain merchant of Madura’. He was a native of 
Madura and was a grain merchant by profession. He 
is stated to have been on friendly terms with the Chera 



ruler Senguttuvan, ^ and on closer terms of appreciative 
intimacy with his younger brother, Ilango as he is known) 
who had renounced life, and was a resident of one of the 
viharas at the east gate of Vanji, his brother’s capital. 
The story is that the two princes, the reigning Chera 
Senguttuvan and his younger brother, were both seated 
in the assembled court of their father. A physiognomist 
who was there, looking at the younger of the two, 
predicted that he had in his face marks of ‘ a ruler of 
men ’. The prince got angry that that prediction should 
have been made, and to avoid any possibility of misunder- 
standing he took a vow of renouncing life, and did 
so forthwith, so that there may be no misunderstanding 
of his position, and that no damage may be done to the 
legitimate claims of his elder brother.^ That was the 
ascetic prince who wrote the Silappadhikaram in the 
circumstances already detailed above. His friend, and 
the friend of his elder brother, the ruling monarch, 
Sattan, was the author of the other poem. The two 
works are so connected that one may believe the facts 
embodied in the prologues to the two poems that they 
were contemporaries, and the works were written with 
a design that they should together constitute one com- 
plete epic poem. To confirm this, the author of the 
Silappadhikaram brings in references to this Sattan in 
the body of his work, thus putting it beyond doubt that 
Sattan, the author of Manimekhalai was contemporary 
with himself and his elder brother. The position there- 
fore is actually as it is stated in the prologue to 4ihe 
Silappadhikaram that the authors were contemporaries 
and the story is to treat of the conten'iporary rulers of 
the three kingdoms of the south. This enables us to 

^ Silappadhikaram, xxv. 64-66. 

2 Ibid,, XXX. 170-183, and xxix, Introd. : prose passage and references 
within. • 


give the real character to the works themselves. We 
shall have to revert to this subject later. 

The name of Ilango, the author of the Silappadhi- 
karam does not figure elsewhere and in other connections. 
But we have reference to Sattan. The latter’s 
name figures ^among the traditional forty-nine of the 
Third Tamil Sangam. A verse contribution of his is 
included in the so-called Tiruvalluvamalai said to have 
been composed in praise of the Kural of Tiruvalluvar. 
Sattan actually quotes the Kural and even textually 
incorporates one Kural, in his work. This fact would 
certainly prove that he knew the Kural and admired it. 
But that need not make him a contemporary of the 
author of the Kural from that fact alone. There is only 
one poem ascribed to Sattan included in the Sangam 
works so-called. That is the only other poem that we 
know of as the work of Sattan if that Sattan was the 
author of Manimekhalai. Sattan is remembered in 
Tamil literary tradition as an uncompromising critic, 
among the members of the Sangam. In crticising 
others’ works, he used, it appears, to strike his head 
with his iron style whenever he found faults of compo- 
sition in the works presented to the Sangam for approval. 
As a result of repeated blows his head came to be 
habituall3^ suppurated, and hence the nickname given 
to him ‘ Sattan of the suppurated head ’. His position 
among Tamil poets therefore is that of an eminent critic 
whose criticism was of unquestionable value and com- 
mandecf the respectful acceptance of his contemporaries. 

His work, the only one of importance, Manimekhalai 
is, as has been said above, a Buddhist work. As such 
one would naturally expect it was generally" Buddhists 
alone that would regard it as of importance. From 
literary tradition that has come down to us, it cannot be 



said that it was exclusively so. Tamil works bearing 
on literary criticism sometimes quote from the work. 
Tradition has preserved two verses of commendation 
from such different people as Ambikapati, son of the 
great poet Kamban, and Sivaprak^asvami, Saiva 
Matadhipati. This is an indication that the work is really 
a work of merit and the approval of the discerning Tamil 
public that it is so is in evidence in its inclusion arilong the 
five great kavyas of Tamil. ‘Is it then a Sangam work ? 

^angam works strictly so-called, are works presented 
to the Sangam and approved by them. Later the 
expression came to mean no more than that the works 
so described were ci a sufficiently classical character 
that, had they the chance, they would have met with 
the approval of the Sangam. There is nothing in the 
work itself, nor is there any tradition that this work of 
Sattan was presented to the Sangam at all. The non- 
existence of a tradition like that may not necessarily 
mean that it was not so presented, but on the evidence 
accessible to us, we are not in a position to state that it 
was so presented and received the approval of the 
Sangam. None the less, it would be correct to describe 
it as a Sangam work for the reason that it was a work 
that was produced in the age when the Sangam output 
was perhaps the highest, and that it is undoubtedly so 
in point of quality and eminence such as it is. On the 
fact of it therefore, and from the circumstances of its 
composition, we have to regard it as a Sangam work.^at 
least in the secondary sense of the term. T his position 
can be supported by an examination of its literary 
character in comparison with other works actually 
described as Sangam works. It is possible to collect 
together linguistic and grammatical details from which 
to prove for it an age different from that of the 


Silappadhikaram as had been attempted more than once ~ 

recently. With a great poet such minutiae will perhaps 

lead to illusory inferences. The general literary cast, 
similarity of ideas and thoughts on connected subjects 

and such other elements that go to make up the general 
literary character would perhaps be more certain evidence 
of contemporaneity, and such could be adduced in 
favour of the position that the Manimekhalai is a work 
of the Sangam age. •Its literary affinity to the 
Silappadhikaram could be placed beyond doubt as one 
could find easily numbers of passages ^ where the same 
ideas are expressed in almost identical terms. The 
similarity is so great that, unless we can postulate that 
the one copied from the other deliberately no other 
explanation is possible than that the two works were 
produced in the same literary atmosphere. One has ^ 

only to read through the excellent edition of our eminent 
Pandit Mahamahopadhyaya V. Swaminatha Aiyar to see 
how closely the works are to each other in point of 
literary character. Linguistic details notwithstanding, 
Manimekhalai may be taken to be of the same age as 
the' Silappadhikaram, and that the two belong 
undoubtedly to the age of the Sangam whatever that be. 

II *1* 


■: I 

Manimekhalai, as was already remarked, is a poem : 

first and foremost; whatever subject is actually 
brought into it is therefore treated poetically. That ^ 

must be carefully borne in mind in examining it for any 
purpose that one may have in view. As an epic poem 
it sets before itself the d'idactic purpose of enforcing the 



superiority of Buddhism as a religion both as conducive 
to good conduct in this life and happiness in the life 
hereafter. The fact that it is primarily a poetical work, 
and the feature that its object is the exaltation of 
Buddhism, neither of them, pyima facie holds out 
promise of anything historical being found in the work. 
Nevertheless the poem could contain, and does contain, 
much that may be considered historical provided the 
material is used on principles of sound criticism. To 
complicate matters still further the poet indulges his 
fancy in the introduction of the supernatural in the 
poem as well he might in poetry of this character. 
This undoubtedly adds to the difficulty, but can hardly 
be held to invalidate the use of such historical material 
as may be found in it. The introduction of the mira- 
culous and the supernatural. is an essential part of works 
on Buddhism even of a professedly historical character. 
Poetical use of the miraculous does not make it any 
more efficacious in transforming the historical into the 
fabulous. The actual difficulty is to discriminate judi- 
ciously what is historical from that which is unhistorical 
in the whole work. 

The scene of the poem is laid in the Tamil land, and, 
by design or because the actual subject forced it on him, 
the author has to deal with the Chola and the Chera 
country and the town of Kanchi in the course of the 
poem. The companion work leaves out Kanchi and 
takes instead Madura and the Pandyan country.. Why 
should the poets do this ? As was already indicated, tTie 
poets do this either because they took up a subject 
which is of a historical character and the incidents 
connected with the subject have reference to these 
places, or because whatever be the character of the 
subject, they bring in these places with a design to say 

14 maistimEkhalai 

something regarding them and their rulers by way of 
compliment. As a matter of fact, the two possible 
motives seem to be combined in the actual works, if the 
passages of the prologues already referred to are to be 
relied on at all as indicating correctly the scope of the 
poem. The two works Silappadhikaram and Mani- 
mekhalai were composed with a view to their constituting 
a single epic, though forming two works. Apart from 
the prologue, so much is <■ indicated in thd concluding 
passage of the Silappadhikaram itself. We have no 
reason to hold the view that the prologues were 
composed so late in point of time that they cease to be 
authority on the work itself. A prologue to a poem in 
Tamil could be composed by one of the following : — 
the author’s teacher, the author’s fellow disciple, the 
author’s pupil, or his commentator. It is the last one 
that could be far removed in point of time. All the 
other three would be, at least can be regarded, contem- 
poraries. The question therefore for us is whether we 
have any valid reason for regarding the prologue to the 
Manimekhalai, or the Silappadhikaram for the matter 
of that, was composed by the commentator. Mani- 
mekhalai does not appear to have had a commentatory 
except our venerable Mahamahopadhyaya Pandit 
Swaminatha Aiyar’s ; and surely he did not compose its 
prologue. In regard to the Silappadhikaram, we have 
two commentators, and neither of the commentators 
seems to have composed the prologue in question. Even 
granting for the sake of argument, that these might have 
composed it, the matter contained therein would still 
have to be considered as embodying orthodpx tradition 
coming down in unbroken succession. When the matter 
of the prologues gets confirmed by references in the 
body of the poems thefiiselves, we have no alternative 



but to accept that the prologues were of contemporary 
composition, at any rate not far removed from contem- 
porary times. That Sattan and Ilango, the two authors, 
were contemporaries can be proved by reference to 
Sattan in the Silappadhikaram, not in the prologue or 
the epilogue, but in the body of the work itself. * 

There is one other feature peculiar to these works 
which must be allowed great weight in this discussion. 
The authors of the poems are not shown to us as later 
writers using it may be a historical subject, relating to 
the rulers of the three far-famed kingdoms of the Tamil 
land. They are brought into relation to the three 
rulers whose deeds are described in the poems 
themselves. The author of the Silappadhikaram, was no 
other than the younger brother of the Chera ruler, 
Senguttuvan who built the temple to the goddess of 
chastity and consecrated it. The grain merchant 
Sattan, who is the author of the other poem was a friend 
of this self-same ruler and of his saintly younger brother. 
This feature of the authors of the poems introduces a 
further complication which makes the understanding of 
the poems in their historical drift very difficult. The 
difficulty consists in this, if they are contemporaries and 
actually wrote of contemporary incidents, how could 
they introduce so much of the supernatural in the poemS ? 
And what is perhaps more, how are we to interpret the 
introduction of the supernatural that occurs in the 
poems ? 

The miraculous and the supernatural form ati 
integral part of any narrative or even regular but 
indigenous history connected with Buddhism. No 
present occiirrence and not a Buddhist character is 

- Bk. XXV, 11. 64-66 and.ll. 100-106. 


satisfactorily explained, according them, unless it 
be by. actual reference to that which had taken 
place in a previous existence. So much so that the 
identical incidents, almost in identical form and details, 
are brought in usually to expound occurrences even of a 
natural character. One has only to compare what is 
regarded as the actual teaching of the Buddha himself 
to appreciate this position. Many of the so-called 
Jataka stories are based on this understanding, a.nd if 
the Buddha could be regarded as being autobiogra- 
phical in these stories, it is not difficult to understand 
that a writer who attempts to describe any particular 
period would naturally indulge in similar fancies. _ If 
so, it will not be difficult to separate that which 
may be regarded as actual from that which is purely 

ideal. _ 

The scene of the story is laid, as was already stated, 

in Tamil India. An authoritative Tamil tradition again 
takes it that the story detailed in the poems has reference 
to things that took place actually. This need not neces- 
sarily be interpreted to mean that the incidents took place 
in the manner that the poet has described them. It is 
open to the poets to weave a web of fancy and raise an 
ideal picture round the actual incident. The commen- 
tator Adiyarkunallar, discussing the sub-divisions of the 
work Silappadhikaram, makes some apt remarks in 
regard to this particular point. He refers to the bigger 
divisions being named kundam and the smaller divisions 
!^dau The Silappadhikaram actually consists of three 
kmtdams relating respectively to Puhar, Madura and 
Vaiiji. Each one of these kandams is divided into 
books, the total number of which for the Work is thirty. 
The commentator discusses the point that these smaller 
sub-divisions should ^be called k^dai, which is only 



another form of kadai. He notes that what is called 
kadai in Tamil is regarded on authority as fiction ; but 
states that these works are better described as nadahakap- 
piyam, or epic poems of a dramatic character. He further 
describes that the work under discussion, Silappadhi- 
karam, has the features of a drama, and has for its hero , a 
real man, and describes, poetically without doubt, that 
w'hich actually took place. In other words Silappadhi- 
karam gives an idealized ^description of the actual 
occurrences in the life of the hero. The division of 
Manimekhalai into parts also takes the same name. 
There is a variant name for this, which is pattu. The 
latter would simply, mean poem, each canto or book 
constituting by itself a poem. The other name is kadai 
as in the Silappadhikaram and deals with one of the 
incidents in the series that constituted the life of the 
heroine dealt with in the poem. Hence the opinion of 
Tamil literary men seems to be that the two poems deal 
with incidents of a historical character, but, like Shakes- 
peare’s historical dramas, thrown into a somewhat 
idealized form satisfying the demands of epic composi- 
tion. It is on this basis that we shall have to examine 
the work, whether our purpose be literary criticism or 

A connected question with this would naturally be, 
in the circumstances, whether the authors actually tried 
to project on the canvas of their poetry the features of 
their own times as they saw them around, them- 
selves, or those features which they imagined were tile 
features that actually existed, according to their under- 
standing of it, in the time of the hero or the heroine. 
These alternative possibilities would arise if the poems 
deal with subjects that had actually lived and passed 
away into history. These two poems take their subjects 
3 • 


from contemporary life, as was already pointed out in 
connection with the life of the authors. The matter is 
therefore to some extent simplified for us in the fact that 
the authors have chosen for their poetical treatment 
subjects contemporary with themselves. Therefore 
whatever of historical, geographical and social features 
that we may discern in the poem and which we may 
find itrpossible to extricate from the encumbrances of 
poetical idealizing, must necessarily have reference to 
the times of the authors themselves. To that extent we 
are here face to face with pictures of history, idealized 
though they be. 

Manimekhalai begins with the great festival to Indra 
in Puhar. Throughout the whole work Puhar is spoken 
of as the Chola capital and even where its destruction 
by the sea is referred to, no other capital of the Cholas 
finds mention. Puhar, therefore, may be taken to have 
been the habitual capital of the Cholas in the course 
of the story. The ruler of the kingdom was one who is 
described variously as Nedumudi Killi or Mavan Killi 
or Vel-ver Killi or even Kalar Killi. He married in the 
family of the Mahabalis or the Banas,^ and his queen’s 
name is given as Slrti. He had a younger brother by 
name Ilarh Killi who was ruling over Kanchi at the time 
wh&n Manimekhalai arrived in the city. That would 
mean that Kanchi was a viceroyalty of the Cholas, and 
was at the time being governed by a royal prince. In 
other words, it was of sufficient importance to be regarded 
as'^a palatine viceroyalty. This Ilarh Killi, the viceroy 
of Kanchi, won for his elder brother Mavan Killi a victory 
against the allied Chera and Pandya at a place called 

^ 5ciXj 11, 50-5^, 

^ ^ xix, 11. 12Q-12S an4 xxviii, p. 172, 


In discussing the circumstances under which Puhar, 
at least a part of it, was destroyed by the sea, we are 
given the information that seems actually to be a refer- 
ence to the birth of Tondaiman Ilarfi-Tiraiyan, who, as 
ruler of Kanchl, became a very important figure in the 
age of the Sangan. The Chola ruler for the time being 
entered into a liaison with a Naga princess, namely, Pili- 
va|ai, the daughter of Valai Vanan, ruler of Naga. Nadu. 
She stayed with him for aboyt a month, and went away 
from him without any intimation. When she had 
become mother of a son, she sent the baby from Marii- 
pallavam through a sea-going merchant Kambala Setty, 
whose ship touched, the island on its way. When he 
had arrived within sight of the shore, he suffered ship- 
wreck, and, in the resulting confusion, lost sight of the 
baby. He took it, therefore, that the baby had died in 
the accident and so reported the matter to the king in the 
discharge of his responsibility to him. The king was so 
upset in his search for the baby that he did not issue the 
instructions for carrying out the arrangements for the 
celebration of the annual festival to Indra. On account 
of this remissness, the goddess Manimekhalai brought 
about the destruction of Puhar by the sea. So much of the , 
story is under reference in Manimekhalai itself. It agrees 
so far with the details given of the birth of Tondaihan 
Ilarh-Tiraiyan in other Sangam Poems that it is 
ordinarily taken to refer to the birth of that chief. The 
baby was obviously alive and had been subsequently 
brought to the king. Recognizing by the mark, previously 
agreed upon, which was no more than a sprig of the 
creeper ton^i (Indian Caper, Cafhalandra Indicd) tied 
to the ankle he apparently brought him up as a prince, 
and in course of time he grew up to be a ruler of Kanchi. 
This identification rests merely, upon the probability of 



the case and not upon the certainty of a knowledge of 
established identity. But so many of the details 
connected with the first story are in agreement with the 
other that it is very probable that they refer to the same 
incident, the birth of Tondaman I|am-Tiraiyan. We 
shall revert to the importance of this particular point 

So ^ar as there are references to the Pandyan king- 
dom in this work, Madura was all through the capital 
and is referred to as Dakshina Madura, and the contem- 
porary ruler is referred to as ‘ Seliyan of the beautiful 
car’. The alternative capital of the Pandyas, Korkai, is 
also referred to. Beyond that not much that is 
said about Madura unless it be that the existence of a 
temple of the ‘ goddess of Learning ’ is considered of 
sufficient importance for the purpose. Coming to the 
third capital, Vanji, of the Cheras, there is much more 
said of it, than of the Pandyan country or of its capital. 
It is in reference, as under the rule of Senguttu- 
van at the time, and Senguttuvan’s extensive 
dominions and of his invasion of northern India are 
also referred to. The other details connected with 
his war across the Ganges and his enemies are also 
specifically mentioned here as in other works. In 
speaking of the battle of Kariyaru referred to before, V anji 
is stated to be the place wherefrom the invasion started. 
There is an elaborate description of the town of Kanchi 
where Manimekhalai ultimately attained to the enlighten- 
ment required as a preliminary to her final renunciation. 
It is said that, at the time of her arrival, Kanchi had 
been suffering from a very severe famine, and she was 
actually directed to go there for the purpose of relieving 



the distress. It is in that connection that Kanchi is 
said to have been under the rule of Ilaih Killi who 
built for Manimekhalai a new vihura with a chaitya 
and appurtenances necessary for it. So during the 
period to which the story of Manimekhalai may be 
said to refer, Kanchi was still a Chola viceroyalty, 
and the viceroy at the time was a younger brother of 
the reigning Chola. There are other matters which may 
be regarded as of a historical^character, though they are 
not exactly of the form of definite details of geography 
or history. 

Communication from place to place seems to have 
been comparatively, free and easy. When Puhar 
suffered destruction by the sea, people could move out, 
some to Vanji, some to Kanchi. Pilgrimages between 
distant places such as the extreme north and the extreme 
south, seem to have been fair and frequent. Commercial 
activity seems to have been great and protection to people 
offered by the authorities for the time being efficient. 
Trade was carried on over land and over sea, regular 
caravans seem to have gone the one way, and fleets of 
ships over the sea periodically. Navigation was not 
altogether free from danger due to wind and weather, as 
well as other circumstances such as being stranded on the 
shores of islands inhabited by savages. Notwith- 
standing the danger, there seems to have been 
regular communication between lands across the seas. 
The island of Savaham finds mention, and it is described 
as a kingdom of considerable importance, although the 
ruler, a Buddhist is described with all the romantic 
embellishments of a prospective Buddha. Invasions could 
be readily undertaken as far north as the Himalayas, and 
the specific statement that the Ganges had to be crossed 
by means of boats and that wars, were actually carried on 



on the northern banks of it cannot be dismissed altogether, 
as figments of the imagination. Whether the actual war 
as described took place or no, they had ideas that such 
were feasible. 

One other feature must be referred to here. The 
religious condition of Puhar, of which we get a fairly, 
full description, was what was to be expected of a 
flourishing Hindu capital. It is not merely a question 
of confusion of languages but even confusion of religions. 
Temples to the gods of the Hindu pantheon, viharas set 
apart for the votaries of Buddhism, and garden retreats 
for the saintly among the Jains lay side by side, at any 
rate not far apart of each other. They sometimes 
formed part of the city but were generally located just 
outside the inner city and the fortress. Votaries of 
other religions lived side by side and taught, unmolested 
by others. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other set 
had the superiority in one or other of the branches of 
religious learning. Manimekhalai found enough to learn 
of Buddhism in the initial stages at Puhar, but she could 
gain real insight into the heretical systems only at V anji. 
She could get the most orthodox and the authoritative 
teaching in Buddhism only from a particular teacher, and 
he happened to be at Kan chi at the time. He was in 
Puhar before, so that these religious teachers were 
allowed to teach what they believed, unmolested in the 
one royal capital as in the other viceregal capital or else- 
where a,s they actually liked. Being a Buddhist work it 
tlfrows into prominent relief the condition of Buddhism 
and Buddhist shrines. But there are references scattered 
through the work to other shrines and to the^ votaries of 
other religions that enable us to infer that not only 
Buddhism, but Jainism and all the different forms of 
Hinduism extending from the extreme theism of the 



Saiva or Vaishnava to the complete atheism of the 
Lokayata or the Bhutavadi flourished alike. Learning 
was highly respected, and learned men of all persuasions 
alike were treated with respect whatever their ultimate 

There is one feature that is referred to here which 
also finds reference in the Silappadhikaram, a festival to 
Indra celebrated with great hlat in the city of T'uhar. 
A festival to Indra seems to be more or less a common 
festival and celebrated all over India. But that which 
was celebrated in Puhar had a ^peculiar significance. 
There is nothing otherwise to indicate that it was a festi- 
val peculiar to this particular city. That festival lasted 
for twenty-eight days in the month of Chaitra (April- 
May) and came to a close, as near as possible on the full, 
moon day. The celebration in Puhar was of such a 
character that the heaven of Indra itself was vacated by 
the Gods coming down to witness the festival in Puhar. 
This festival was ordained at the special request of one 
of the ancient Cholas and hence the peculiar importance 
of it in Puhar. It is the forgetting of the annual cele- 
bration of this festival that was directly responsible for 
the destruction, partial or complete, of Puhar in the 
course of the story of Manimekhalai. 

Having said so much about what may be considered 
historical details in the work, it is now necessary to con- 
sider the supernatural elements introduced in the poem. 
What are the elements themselves How are they used 
in the poem ? Can we regard the human features of tke 
poem as historical notwithstanding the fact that they are 
mixed up with the supernatural ! These are features 
which must*be investigated before we can proceed to use 
the historical material contained in the work. The first 
general remark that could; be rnade in regard to this 





subject is that the author takes care to introduce the super- 
natural element only where it comes in appropriately in 
accordance with the accepted traditions of India, perhaps 
the more peculiar Buddhist thought. The characters 
and the main incidents where the supernatural occurs in 
the course of the poem may be broadly stated as these ; 
the goddess Manimekhala undoubtedly shows super- 
naturaUeatures of character, Manimekhalai herself ripens 
into the possession of supernormal powers such as, being 
able to fly in the air, to be independent of hunger, and 
to be unaffected by physical pain to which she had been 
subjected at one stage. Vidyadharas and Vidyadharis 
are introduced with all the supernajtural embellishments 
to which Hindu tradition always gave them credit. 
Buddhist holy men are described with powers super- 
human which is included in the ordinary Buddhist 
notions of the attainment of what they called rddhi, 
which in the language of Hindu thought would be 
described as the siddhis or extraordinary powers. There 
is also introduced a speaking statue, gods and goddesses 
speakingfrom their images, a supernatural never-exhaust- 
ing bowl, a supernatural Buddha-seat which let one into 
the secrets of one’s past existence. Of these elements 
most of them were really believed in and cannot be said 
even now not to be believed in by Indians as a whole, 
Buddhists and Hindus. They are of the nature of 
current convictions regarding the existence of the super- 
natural and of their intervention in human affairs. But 
the point for note is that the poet never allows the super- 
natural element play in human character proper. The 
two exceptions to this would be Manimekhalai herself 
who is described as a human character and Aputra, in 
whose character supernatural features are found. But 
the extraordinary powers that Manimekhalai acquires 



are, according to Buddhists, attainable by all human 
beings with sufficient preparation, if they should attain to 
the requisite degree of ripening. But there is the point 
to be noted still that Manimekhalai is a character, though 
human in form and features to begin with, so far idealized 
as a ripe subject for the reception of the teaching of the 
Buddha that she attains normally to the possession of 
these extraordinary powers. This is brought oift even 
more clearly in the case of the other character, Aputra 
who is again treated more or less as one who would 
ultimately ripen into a B.odhisattva. In any critical 
judgment, therefore, of these characters, it must be borne 
in mind that contemporary Buddhist thought admitted 
of the attainment of extraordinary, and even superhuman, 
powers by fit subjects for this exaltation. Subjects that 
are actually brought in as ordinary human characters on 
the stage of the poem are treated actually as such and the 
poet thus enables one to clearly demarcate where the 
human element ends and the superhuman element begins. 
A careful study of the poem throughout, in all its full- 
ness of detail, would leave the impression clear on the 
mind of a critical reader that the poet wants the human 
element to be so understood and as being quite distinct 
from the superhuman. The superhuman itself is so 
distinctly treated that there can be no mistake that In 
those cases he is dealing actually with the supernatural 
element and not ordinary human beings. The author 
carries this distinction to a point of fineness when the 
heroine returns to Manipallavam with Aputra from 
his kingdom, Savakam. Manimekhalai as usual flies 
through the ^ir. Aputra on the contrary has to order 
a fleet to be got ready to take him to the same 
destination. Therefore we are distinctly in a position to 
examine the human element in the poem as such in all 
4 ■ ^ 


its human aspects and human surroundings just to find 
out how far this proves to be historical. The superhuman 
elements themselves can easily be proved to be not 
beyond the credibility of an average Buddhist of the time 
to which the author obviously makes reference. It 
would, therefore, seem justifiable that, notwithstanding 
the element of the supernatural in the poem, there is 
muchnn it that is capable of being used for purposes of 
history, not only history c^f a general character, but also 
in regard to even the specific details and incidents. 

It has been described above that the Manimekhalai 
is a professedly Buddhist work. As such its cultural 
character can be expected to be , more or less North 
Indian and Sanskritic. But great poet that the author 
is, he certainly draws very freely upon Buddhist as well 
as Sanskritic culture. A careful reader would notice 
that he does not sacrifice any of the classical South 
Indian or Tamil features of his poem by so doing. It 
may almost be said that he is hardly conscious that he 
is producing in his work the blend of the two cultures. 
It is a Tamil classic out and out, but a Tamil classic 
with a great infusion of Sanskrit culture, producing the 
impression that the author is hardly aware of anything 
like a distinction between the two. In those circum- 
stances, there is hardly room for the feeling that there 
was any hostility. Even so, there are features in it 
which are worthy of special remark. 

Anjong these perhaps the most noteworthy would be 
the Agastya tradition. Readers of the Buddhist Jatakas 
know that Agastya there appears in a form, in the two 
Jatakas in which Agastya’s life history comes in for 
discussion, that the Tamilian knows nothing of. Such 
tradition as the Manimekhalai records of him is tradition 
which is more in accord' with the Brahmanical form of if 


than Buddhist, although it is a Buddhist author and a 
Buddhist work that make reference to it. 

A'gastya is referred to as one from whose water-pot 
the Kaveri took its rise. The story is related that king 
Kantama prayed of Agastya for a stream of water that 
would fertilize his territory, and with Agastya’ s consent 
as it were, the water that he had in his water-pot was 
upset and flowed eastwards from it till it reached the 
sea. At the place where it w^s to enter the sea there 
lived an old lady, the goddess of India, Champapati 
as she is called in Tamil, the goddess of ‘ the Jambuland,’ 
the common name for India. Agastya directed the 
Kaveri to make her .obeisance to the venerable lady. 
The goddess Kaveri worshipped her, and was received 
very kindly by her ; and thereafter she became the 
daughter of the Chola country, as it were, fertilizing with 
her streams the land over which the Cholas ruled, and 
which formed part of ‘ Bharatam ’ as it is called in 
Tamil, the Bharatavarsha of Sanskrit. 

The second place in which Agastya comes in for 
reference ^ is where he is said to have advised the Chola 
who destroyed ‘ the moving fortress in the air of the 
Rakshasas ’ by way of rendering assistance to Indra. On 
the advice of Agastya this Chola requested Indra that 
he might be personally present in the capital city 'bf 
Puhar or Kaveripattinam during the twenty-eight days’ 
festival which he had undertaken to celebrate in honour 
of the god, his friend. The river Kaveri itself wa^ given 
that name because she came there in response to thS 
request of the Chola ruler Kavera who performed a 
penance in one of the small forests adjacent to the town^ 
of Puhar. 

^ Canto i, 11. 3-9. 

* Pa*kam, 11. 9-2S ; ill, 11. 55-56, 


There is another reference to Agastya in connection 
with the same ruler Kantama against whom Parasurama 
appeared in his campaign to uproot the Kshatriya race. 
Kantama in difficulty sought the advice of Agastya and 
in accordance with that advice put the kingdom in charge 
of his illegitimate son Kakandan, and remained in hiding 
till the danger ^ should pass. In these references 
Agastya appears as a holy Rishi, who was habitually in 
residence in the Tamil coiyatry, and advised and assisted 
the Chola ruler in difficulty as perhaps others as well. 
In Tamil literature generally Agastya is associated 
with the hill Podiyil and is regarded as being specially 
devoted to the interest of the Pandas. 

The Ramayana comes in for reference at least in two 
incidents. In canto xviii, lines 19 to 26, there is a 
reference to the illegitimate love of Indra to Ahalya the 
wife of Rishi Gautama. The story occurs in so many 
other places that it need not be regarded as exactly taken 
from the Ramayana, seeing that the actual connection 
of Rama with the revivification of Ahalya is not under 
allusion here. The two references to Rama’s bridge 
must be held as referring to the Ramayana itself. The 
first is in canto v, line 37. In this all that is stated is 
that the famous bathing place of Kumari is said to have 
‘ teen made by monkeys ’. Nothing more is stated 
regarding it and leaves us merely to surmise whether it 
is not a reference to Rama’s bridge which is now located 
in the island of Ramesvaram, a considerable distance 
from where Kumari is. In canto xvii, lines 9 to 16, 
however, there is a far clearer and indubitable reference 
to the causeway built by the army of monkeys for 
Rama who is stated in so many words to have come 

xxi, 11. 25-39. 



on earth as a result of the delusion brought upon him by 
a curse. The particular point of the reference is that 
all the big stones and other material for bridge-building 
brought by the monkeys and thrown into the water 
disappeared completely without the slightest assistance 
to achieving his object, the comparison instituted being 
to the great hunger from which Kayasandikai suffered ; 
all the quantities of food that she ate vanished without 
effect as did the stones that Ae monkeys threw into the 
sea when building the bridge. Almost exactly the same 
detail is given in the Ramayana in the construction of 
the bridge across to Lanka. It must be noted here 
that in this context the locality is not actually stated 
though taking the two together one may infer that the 
tradition in the days of the author of the Manimekhalai 
connected Rama’s bridge with Kumari, as in the Ramayana 

One clear incident is under reference from the 
Mahabharata, from the Virataparva. In canto iii lines 
146 to 148 Arjuna’s appearance in the city of the Virata 
king as a eunuch is brought into comparison with the 
appearance of the beautiful Manimekhalai in the garb 
of a Buddhist nun {bikshuni). There is another 
reference which may be to the Mahabharata, but does 
actually belong to the Vishunupurana and the Bhagavata. 
This is a reference to a peculiar kind of a dance ^ which 
Krishna’s son Pradhyumna is said to have danced at the 
capital city of Bana, by name Sonagaram. The allusion 
here is to Pradhyumna assuming the form of a euntfch 
and dancing in the streets of the capital of this Bana- 
asura to recover his son Aniruddha who had been thrown 
into prison in a love adventure with Usha, Baiia s 

Canto in, U. 282-125. 



daughter. In the Silappadhikaram^ there is a reference 
to Krishna having enacted a similar dance. The city of 
Sonagaram is not mentioned in the text as such. There 
is also a reference to Krishna’s pastoral dance, ^ the dance 
of Krishna, his elder brother and sister is brought into 
comparison with the movement of a peacock, a peahen 
and a royal swan moving about together in the garden. 
In another place in the same canto, line 76 to 77, a white 
tree and a blue tree are likened to Krishna and Balarama 
standing. These instances are under frequent reference 
in the Silappadhikaram, and other instances connected 
with these in other Sangam works. In the same canto, 
lines 51 to 56, there is a reference, to the Vamanava- 
tara of Vishnu and the gift that Bali made to him, in 
connection with the descent of the Chola queen from 
the family of the Banas who traced their descent to 
Mahabali himself. There are numbers of other stray 
instances, such as Visvamitra’s attempt,^ in an extremity 
of hunger, to eat dog’s flesh ; and Agni’s love to the 
wives of the seven rishis. ^ 

There is another reference of importance to another 
department of Sanskrit literature. There is a reference 
in canto xv to Yaugandharay ana’s appearing as a 
diseased beggar in the town of Ujjain, the capital of 
Pradhyota to release from prison his sovereign, the 
Vatsa king Udayana. He is referred to as the Brahman 
Yuhi. This must be a reference either from the 
Brhatkatha itself or a similar source elsewhere. The 
incident alluded to here is found described in the same 
detail in Somadeva’s Kathasarit Sagara and in the 

^ Canto vi, 11. 54, SS. 

* xix, 11. 65-66. 

= xi, 11. 84. 

* xviii, 11. 92-S17. M.Bh. iii. 224-26. 


dharayana of the dramatist Bhasa (lines 

Mother important reference to a peculiar 
custom of the Chola royal family which regarded 
Chola princes dying a natural death as old men, 
disgraceful.^ When prince Udayakumara had fallen 
by the sword of the Vidyadhara, an old woman of 
the city by name Vasantika (Vasantavai) went to 
the queen and offered her gonsolation. Admonishing 
her not to show her sorrow as a mother for the 
death of the son in the presence of the king, she ex- 
plained to her as a feature of the Chola royal family that 
members of that distinguished family rarely died a 
natural death as old men ; when by chance they did so 
without falling in battle, attacking the enemy and carry- 
ing on an aggressive war, or resisting an invasion by the 
enemy in defence of the kingdom, the dead bodies of 
such were laid solemnly over a bed of ku^a grass [Poa 
cymsuroides) by Brahmans who cut the body and 
quartered it as a symbol of their having fallen in battle. 
This ceremony, according to the current belief of the 
times, ushered them into the Virasvarga, the heaven of 
the heroes, which would have been their reward if they 
had fallen in battle. The occurrence of the kuSa grass 
and the officiating of the Brahman on the occasion would 
justify the inference that it was perhaps an imported 

These instances selected from among a large num- 
ber give us an idea of the result of the contact of 
culture between that which may be regarded as South 
Indian and Tamil, and North Indian and Sanskrit. The 
work is a professedly Buddhist work as was said, and 

' jcxii, 11. ii-m 



Buddhism being a northern cult must have brought 
along with it much that was northern though not neces- 
sarily Sanskritic. It is an open question whether the 
earliest Buddhist teaching was embodied in Sanskrit 
or one of the Prakrits including Pali. But the details 
of culture collected have no reference to Buddhism and 
are perhaps all of them Brahmanical in point of 
character. The choice has been made advisedly so 
that what is attempted to be illustrated is the degree of 
contact between the two cultures and their consequent 
intermingling. The fact that the author and the work 
are professedly Buddhist, makes these all the more 
valuable as an indication that the /infusion of Sanskrit 
culture was not of the partially religious kind. The 
inference therefore seems clear that the contact has 
been of considerable standing, and the result, one of 
friendly borrowing without narrowness or jealousy. 
There is no evidence of hostility in it, notwithstanding 
that several of these Brahmanical traditions are 
brought in in such a way as to indicate disapproval. 
The religious and philosophical tenets that are incorpo- 
rated do undoubtedly show Sanskrit influence as in fact 
it is inevitable in that connection. But what is to the 
purpose here is the flow of Northern culture seems to 
have been free, and the incorporation of the elements of 
that culture equally free. It is not the characteristic of 
Tamil works of this class alone ; but even works of a 
more severely Tamil character exhibit that contact no 
less decisively. Notwithstanding this free infusion of 
Sanskrit culture these classics as well as others, still 
could maintain their distinct character as Tamil works 
in their method and in their spirit. The infusion of 
Sanskrit culture seems to have been generally taken to 
be of such benefit that 'undoubtedly later inscriptions 



could place the translation of the Mahabharata into 
Tamil on a footing of equal importance with the 
establishment of the institution, the Tamil Sangam, in 
Madura. A detailed examination of these borrowed 
elements in Tamil literature would lead to conclusions 
of the first importance both in regard to Tamil literature 
itself and in regard to Sanskrit culture generally. A 
chronological datum by itself is of no imffortance 
whatsoever. But it is of .the first importance in its 
bearing upon the development of Indian culture 
generally both in its Dravidian and in its Aryan aspects. 
If we should succeed in arriving at a tolerably certain 
age for the Sangam and the Tamil works associated with 
it, it would give us a chronological starting point for 
the forward movement of the two cultures as a result of 
this fruitful contact. It would enable us to determine 
what exactly the state of Dravidian culture at the time 
was and what important results flowed from its coming 
into contact with Sanskrit at that particular stage of its 
development. We would be enabled to throw light, 
and undoubtedly important light, upon the stage of 
development of Sanskrit culture itself. To illustrate 
our position we have only to take up that single incident 
drawn incidentally from a free comparison of Yaugandha- 
rayana’s appearance at the city of Ujjain in the circum- 
stances in which this has been introduced in the Mani- 
mekhalai. Scholars are not yet agreed as to the date of 
either the Brhatkatha or its translations, even as ‘to how 
far the Sanskrit versions of the Paisachi original actual- 
ly follow the text. A connected question with this is 
the Bhasa groblem which has been receiving a great 
deal of attention in recent times. If this single incident 
may not do to settle those questions, it may throw its 
own particular light upon them and, if a few other 
5 *» 




specimens like this could be got together, the light that 
we gain may be adequate for a reasonable settlement of 
the whole question. It would be an interesting question 
whether the knowledge that the author of the Manimekha- 
lai had of Yaugandharayana’s achievement in Ujjainwas 
derived from the Brhatkatha itself, or one of its trans- 
lations, or even the drama of Bhasa, Pratigna-Yaugan- 
dharaya'ha. That is only so far by the way. The general 
conclusions that may be drawm from these elements of 
Sanskrit culture in the Tamil classic is to a very great 
extent supported by the Sangam classics themselves as 
a whole. Scholars argue that the incursion of Sanskrit 
culture into the Tamil land was a product of much later 
times and therefore works that show that infiltration 
must be of a later age. Such an argument is putting 
the cart before the horse. It is essential to any con- 
clusion of that kind that a serious examination should 
be made of the elements of Sanskritic culture in Tamil 
before we could formulate a position as to the actual 
age of the infusion of this culture. To this end the 
examination above made of the elements of Sanskrit 
culture in the Manimekhalai may make its own slight 

" III 


Taking only the more prominent features, it was 
already pointed out that Manimekhalai refers do the three 
royal capitals of the Tamil land and Kanchi. The story 
begins with the Chola capital of Puhar, the capital of the 
Cholas from the days of* the legendary king Kavera, It 

Historical conclusions 


is generally accepted as a fact that the Chola Karikala 
improved it and made it exclusively the capital of the 
Cholas in his days. Uraiyur, called Urandai in Tamil, 
seems to have shared the honour with it. We can infer 
from the Silappadhikaram that the great Chola Karikala 
was anterior to the period of the story contained in the 
Silappadhikaram itself and of Manimekhalai as well, 
perhaps not long anterior. It therefore is in camplete 
accord with this tradition, apd Puhar is shown in the 
Manimekhalai as in a very high state of prosperity, as it 
is in the Silappadhikaram as well. The description 
contained in these may be confirmed almost in every 
detail by the undoubtedly Sangam work of the famous 
poet Rudran Kannan, whose poem Pattinappalai forms 
one of the collection Pattu-Pattu. This latter work is a 
description of the city in the days of the great ruler Kari- 
kala. Therefore the two descriptions are not far apart 
of each other in point of time. 

The brother of the Chera Senguttuvan, Ilango, des- 
cribes himself as the son of a Chola princess, and his 
grandfather’s name is described as the Chola, ‘ of the 
high car drawn by seven horses.’^ It is possible, with 
good reason, to equate him with Karikala, but the equation 
is nowhere stated explicitly. His Chola contemporaries 
are referred to in the Silappadhikaram at any rate, as'his 
cousin in whose behalf he defeated a number of rival 
claimants to the Chola throne at a place called Neri- 
vayil.^ This contemporary ruler is described, in one 
place as Nedumudi Killi,^ in various other places he*is 
Killi, which is synonymous with Chola, with various 
attributes. , The attributes alone vary; the varying 

^ Canto xxix. Introductory prose passage. 

* sxvii. 11. 115 ff. and xxviii. 11. 112 If. 
xxiv. 29. • 



attributes are ‘ Velvel, ‘ Mavan and so on,^ merely 
indicative of some feature or other of prosperity or 
prowess. At the latter end of the story of Manimekhalai 
and, certainly in the later years of his own reign, the city 
of Puhar suffered destruction by the sea. The result of 
this was that many people abandoned the city and 
migrated elsewhere, some temporarily and many others 
permanently, and the prosperity of the city seems to 
have been, greatly diminished, if not completely des- 
troyed, as a result of this calamity.'^ That is as far as we 
can go with the story of Manimekhalai. In an undoubted 
Sangam poem Sirupanarruppadai of a period perhaps 
in the generation following, the thi;ee crowned kings of 
Tamil India are described more or less fully, and the 
capital of the Cholas is there clearly stated to be 
Urandai without any mention of Puhar, which seems to 
confirm, though indirectly, what is inferred from the 
story of Manimekhalai. Perhaps the Cholas themselves 
abandoned Puhar as a capital and went to Uraiyur in 
view to the war of succession ending in the battle at Neri- 
vayil. The Ceylon tradition connected with Gajabahu’s 
visit to India for the first time as an enemy of the Cholas 
treats of Uraiyur as the Chola capital and not Puhar. ^ 
In the details so far gathered from Manimekhalai, the 
autiior has taken care not to let the supernatural interfere 
with the progress of human history except in regard to 
one particular, and, that is, that the destruction of Puhar 
was bro,ught about by the disappointment of Indra at his 
annual festival having been forgotten to be celebrated, 
and, as a consequence, his directing the goddess Mani- 
mekhala to bring about the destruction of the city. 

^ xxix. 3. 2 127. 

® 5 ' Vadi-vel Killi ’ in xxv. 193. ^ xxv. 11. 176 ff. 

® Upham’s Mahavam^a, etc., ii, 57-S8 and corresponding parts of 
Rajaratnakari and Rajavali. ^ 


The forgetfulness to celebrate the festival to Indra 
referred to in the paragraph above was brought about in 
connection with the story, as detailed in the work Mani- 
mekhalai itself, of the birth of a son to the Chola by a 
Naga princess. The princess goes by the name Pilivalai, 
and was the daughter of the valiant king of the iNfagas'by 
name Valai Vanan. She appeared unexpectedly and 
alone in one of the outer gardens of Puhar wgen the 
Chola was taking air one sumsner evening. The appear- 
ance of a beautiful damsel overpowered the monarch and 
led to their union as a result of love at first sight. After a 
month’s stay with him, she left without intimation, and 
the distressed king was informed by a Bmiddha Charmia 
that she was the daughter of a Naga king, that he would 
never see her again, but that he would get from her a 
son who would prove to be an ornament to his family.^ 
This story appears in connection with Tondaman I|arh- 
Tiraiyan of Kanchl in another Sangam collection, Pattu- 
Pattu. But the full story is not there and the comment- 
ator Nacchinarkiniyar actually supplies the details. 
According to this source, she left the Chola with an 
understanding that she would find means to send his son 
to him who was to recognize that son by a twig of the 
tondai (Caphalandra Indica, Indian caper) creeper round 
his right ankle, undertaking to despatch him by setting 
him afloat in a well-protected box. Disregarding all 
artistic embellishments in the story it would appear per- 
missible to take the two stories as referring to the sair^e 
incident, namely, the birth of Tondaman Ilaih-Tiraiyan 
who became famous, as ruler of Kanchl in the following 
generation. ,That he could not be very far off in point 
of time is clearly in evidence in the Sangam poem 


^ sxiv. 11. 2S ± 


Peruiiibanarruppadai of the poet Radran Kannan, the 
author of Pattinappalai. Even granting a whole century 
of life to Radran Kannan, it would be barely enough 
that he could have been a contemporary with the great 
Chola Karikala from whom he received a sumptuous 
reward for his Pattinappalai, and lived to celebrate at the 
same time prosperous Kanchi under Ilaih-Tiraiyan. The 
inference from this is clear, namely, that Kanchi in the 
period to which Manimekhalai refers was Kanchi anterior 
to the days of Tondaman Ilarh-Tiraiyan, as the Chola 
viceroy at Kanchi at the time of Manimekhalai’s visit 
was Ilarii Killi, the brother of Nedumudi Killi, the Chola 
ruler. Among the number of Killis-'figuring in the Pura- 
nanuru^ it is possible to identify the brothers Nedumudi 
Killi and his brother Ilarii Killi. Nedumudi was pro- 
bably the person who was besieged inUraiyur and Amur 
by Nalam Killi, and the number of Killis that figure in 
this connection would justify what is stated in regard to 
Senguttuvan Chera when he had overcome at Nerivayil 
the nine Chola princes that rose against the ruling Chola, 
his own cousin.^ It seems therefore justifiable to infer 
that, in regard to the Chola ruler and his brother the 
viceroy of Kanchi, they were historical rulers, and it may 
be^noted that the Manimekhalai ascribes to them nothing 

Coming down to Madura and the Pandya country, 
we have but brief references, only two such, to Takkana 
Ivjadura^ (Southern Madura) and one to Korkai.'^ The 
references to them in the Silappadhikaram are far fuller, 
and there is a great deal more that that poem has to tell of 

^ Poems 43 to 47. 

^ &lappadhikaram xxvii, 11. 115 ff. and xxviii, 11. 112 ff. 

® xiii. 105, and xxii. 106. ‘ Tamil Madura ’ in xxv. 139. 

^ xiii. 84. 




Madura than Manimekhalai. Manimekhalai refers to the 
ruler as a Seliyan ‘ of the Golden Car ^ This ruler is the 
successor of the one who gave up his life in consequence 
of his thoughtless perpetration of an act of injustice to 
Kannaki. Here again the historical is kept clear of the 
supernatural. Coming to the third capital, Vanji, Mani- 
mekhalai is brought over there sailing across the air from 
Puhar to the fortified capital of the Chera monarch 
Senguttuvan. He is referred,to in the connection as one 
who had made the limits of the earth itself as the 
boundaries of his Malain3,du^ to have carried on a 
successful invasion to the north, and, crossing the 
Ganges by means of boats, to have defeated Kanaka and 
Vijaya and compelled them to carry a supply of stone 
for making an image of Kannaki from it.^ That is all 
that is said of the Chera Senguttuvan in this poem. But 
Senguttuvan and his^ achievements are described in far 
greater detail in the Silappadhikaram and one section of 
the Sangam collection Padirruppattu.^ The author of 
the Silappadhikaram takes care to depict Senguttuvan 
as a great ruler, the admiring friend of the poet Sattan, 
as having ruled more than fifty years, warring all the 
time. His achievements against the north is described 
in full detail. Numbers of other battles iri which he was 
victorious are mentioned. There are references even to 
his achievement against the chieftain Palaiyan of the 
Madura country and the victory that he won at Nerivayil 
against the Chola rebels in favour of his cousin, the 
ruling Chola. Some of these, the achievement agains* 
Palaiyan are described more elaborately in the Padirrup- 
pattu collection. But what is relevant to the question 
here is that all these confirm each other and make him 

^ xiii. 84. Pofter may mean merely beaiitifnl. ^ xxvi. 

V, ^ ^Bks. sxv“Xxx, 




by far the most powerful ruler of his age. It is the 
Silappadhikaram that is responsible for the statement in 
the body of the work, ^ not merely in the prologue, that 
Gajabahu’ of ‘ the Lanka surrounded by the sea ’ was 
present at the consecration of the temple to Pattini Devi. 
Lanka is defined as surrounded by the seas for very good 
reasons. There were other Lankas on the continent of 
India, ‘and the attribute therefore is called for in order, 
that the ruler of Lanka may not be mistaken for those on 
the continent of India. 

It is necessary to point out here that a predecessor 
of his, very probably an immediate predecessor extended 
the territory of the Cheras on the- west coast by annex- 
ing by conquest the region of Kongu to it^ and carrying 
his conquest further eastward so as to bring under his 
influence, if not his rule,^ the territory extending up to 
the eastern sea. He is said, in the collection Padir- 
ruppattu, * to have celebrated his anointment from the 
waters of the two seas in one bath. Other stray re- 
ferences we have in the Sangam collection by which the 
Kollimalais ^ and the Salem District had been brought 
under the control of the Cheras, as also the territory of 
the Adiyaman« with its capital at Tagadur, the modern 
DharmapurL We see here at work, in the various stages, 
ihe aggressive policy of the Chera rulers of the time. 
We shall revert to this point further down. 

Manimekhalai who had learnt all that the heretical 
teachers had to teach at Vanji, happened to see her 
grandfather there in the Buddhist vihara outside the 

^ xxxi. 160. 

® Ibid., Padig:am to Third Ten. 

Padirrupbattu, poem 22, 11. lS-16. 
Bk. iv 

® Kalladandr , Aham 209 ; Kapilar^ Narrinai 370. 

® Pddirruppattu, Section VHI, poem 73 and pad'igam. 


fortress, and flying again through the air, she goes at 
his direction to meet Aravana Adigal and obtain from 
him the orthodox teachings of the Buddha. Kanchi 
happened to be suffering from a very severe famine, she 
was advised to go there chiefly to find use for the in- 
exhaustible begging bowl, that she carried in her hand. 
She acceded to her grandfather’s request and proceeded 
to Kanchi. She was received by Ilarh Killi, the viceroy, 
and was allotted accommodation in the south-western 
corner of the city in a grove called Dharmadavana, 
wherefrom she fed the suffering people from her in- 
exhaustible bowl much to the relief of the ruler and the 
ruled alike. The grateful viceroy provided for her a 
big vihara with all its appurtenances for her residence 
in the city and did all else she wanted. She got a 
Buddha seat erected and a special ckaitya for holding the 
footprints of the Buddha, and received the teaching of 
Aravana Adigaj, there, as she was not satisfied with all 
that she had learnt of other than Buddhist teachers. She 
obviously remained there for the rest of her life as the 
fact is referred to in a prophesy made in regard to her 
future in the course of the story. It is this Ilaih Killi, 
the viceroy of Kanchi apparently, that is said in an 
earlier part of the poem, in canto xix, to have won a 
victory against the Cheras and the Pandyas at Kariyaru.’' 
He carried from the filed of battle, as spoils of war, the 
state umbrellas of the enemies which he duly presented 
to his brother, and these umbrellas are referred to in an 
address to the reigning Chola ruler on the occasion when 
his officials carried him the information of the doings of 
Manimekhalai in Puhar feeding prisoners from an in- 
exhaustible bowl. The question when the battle was 



fought would arise from this specific statement that flam 
Killi won a victory against the combined Chera and the 
Pandya armies at Kariyaru. There are poems in the 
Purananuru in celebration of ‘ a Chola who fell in battle at 
Kariyaru Therefore we may infer at once that Kariyaru 
was a place very probably on the bank of a river in which 
the Cholas had to do much fighting against their enemies. 
The fighting was not a single incident or a mere battle ; 
probably the frontier was exposed to protracted war 
where constant vigilance on the part of the Cholas was 
required. The reference in the Manimekhalai makes it 
clear that the enemy against whom operation had to be 
undertaken on that particular occasion was the Chera and 
the Pandya combined. But that detail is not stated in 
the other connection. So far as this specific statement 
goes, it gives a material point for identification of the 
locality that this battle was a battle that the Chola 
viceroy had to fight against the Chera and the Pandya. 
Where is Kariyaru then and when was the battle actu- 
ally fought ? The battle was actually fought at a time 
anterior to the advent of Manimekhalai in Kanchl, may 
be in the reign of Senguttuvan or even anterior. But it 
seems likely that it was in Senguttuvan’s reign that the 
incident took place. We have already stated that the 
im*mediate predecessor of Senguttuvan claimed having 
brought the territory of Kongu directly under his rule 
and extended his influence across to the eastern sea. 
We have also a reference incidently to the fact of the 
Slalayaman Kari of Tirukkovilur killing Ori of the Kolli- 
malais and making over the territory to the Chera. There- 
fore even before Senguttuvan came to thg throne, the 
Chera aggression in the east was gradually extending, till 
it came into touch with the Chola frontier all along the 
line towards their we»t and north-west, The effective 



intervention of the Chera Senguttuvan at Nerivayil a 
place not far from Trichinopoly again shows that the 
territory under the control of the Chera was not very far 
from where the battle was actually fought. We may, 
therefore, look forward to Kariyaru anywhere along this 
frontier, and the battle might well have taken place in 
one of these campaigns in the reign of Senguttuvan him- 
self. In an aggressive war of the Cheras it is not a very 
rare occurrence that the Pan(^a was associated with him, 
as in fact it was a normal political relation between the 
three Tamil kings of the South that whenever any one 
of the three got the dominant position the other two 
were certainly opposed to him generally, and got into ah 
active alliance against him as occasion offered. 

In the passage of the poem where a reference is made 
to the victory at Kariyaru the army of invasion is 
definitely said to have started from Vanji, the Chera 
capital. Among the flags hoisted in front of the army on 
the field of battle, the flags of the fish and the bow are 
said to have been fluttering. The two points therefore 
are clear. The object of the invasion is also unmistaka- 
bly stated to be ‘ the desire for land,’ in other words, 
earth-hunger, the desire for addition of territory. That 
was the character of the invasion which was beaten back 
by the viceroy at Kariyaru. The location of the rfver 
therefore must be in the vicinity of the Chola frontier, 
which would answer to this actual description. It would 
at once be clear from this description that the, attack 
could not have been delivered anywhere on the frontier 
of the Chola kingdom proper, as in that case the army of 
the headquarters would have repulsed the invasion, while 
it is possible that the younger brother, the viceroy of 
Kanchl, might none the less have led the army. In those 
circumstances, it is not likely. that the credit of the 



victory would have been assigned solely to the prince, 
commander-in-chief though he might have been. The 
victory is described as having been won by the viceroy- 
prince. It should therefore have been within the limits 
of his viceregal authority, and he must have won it 
without assistance from the ruling monarch for the time 
being. Otherwise the description would be from the 
point 0^ view of language somewhat inappropriate. We 
would therefore be justified in looking for Kariyaru 
somewhere on the frontiers of the viceroyalty of KanchT. 
About the time to which this refers, the distribution of 
territory was such that between the Chola kingdom 
proper and the territory dependent- upon Kanchi, there 
was at least one region which had its own chieftain 
though that chieftain might have acknowledged allegi- 
ance to the Chola ruler for the time being. These 
chieftains who, at different periods of the Sangam age, 
counted, five, seven, eleven and fourteen, according to 
occasions, ruled their own territory and acknowledged 
allegiance to one or other of the three crowned kingdoms 
as occasion demanded, and asserted their independence 
as opportunity offered. It is petty wars among these and 
their deep-seated hostility to one another that were 
responsible at this time for the extension of the territory 
of the Chera through the middle block of territory 
comprising within it the territory of Kongu, the chief- 
taincy of Adiyaman of Tagadur and the chieftaincy of 
Ori round the Kollimalais. There was another chieftain 


Pari whose territory seems to have lain still farther west, 
or as some take it in the south. There was still another 
who does not figure in these transactions, and his 
territory lay well within the territory of modern Mysore. 
The territory, therefore of Malaiyaman Kari, with his 
capital at Tirukkovilur,ccame actually between the Chola 



king(3om proper and the province of Kanchl. The 
chieftain Kari was at this time in active alliance with the 
Cheras whose relative he was and for whom he actually 
conquered the territory round Kollimalais as was stated 
already. Hence if Kanchi could have been the objective 
of attack, assistance from the Chola kingdom could not 
always be at hand. It is one of such attacks that is 
clearly meant in the actual description of the battle that 
is given in this work. Whese could we possibly locate 
this Kariyaru ? 

Kari at the time seems to have been a common name, 
the Tamil equivalent of Sanskrit Krishna, and as common 
as the name Krishna is now-a-days was Kari then in the 
Tamil country. Of course, it takes other forms more 
dialectical and popular. The Malayaman chieftain was 
called Kari, as was stated already, and Kariyaru is open 
to the interpretation that it was a river which was a 
feature of the territory of the chieftain Kari. It does not 
happen to be so in this context however. The Editor of 
the work with his usual learning and circumspection, has 
quoted a verse from the Periyapuratiani in connection 
with the life of Tirunavukkarasu or Appar-. Describing 
his visit to the holy places of the Saivas, he is said to 
have visited the shrine which is named Tiru-Karikkarai. 
Omitting the complimentary expletive at the beginning, 
the name would stand Karikkarai, the bank of the Kari 
river, which may either be the river by name Kari or by 
translation black river. Appar is said to have* visited 
TiruvMangadu near Arkonam, passed from there to 
Tripasur and then after a prolonged journey, crossing 
hills and^rjvers, he arrived at Tiru-Karikkarai, wor- 
shipped Siva there, and at the next stage of his 
march reached Kalahasti. This eleventh- twelfth century 
work the PeriyapurUnmi clearly marks out for us the 





itinerary of Appar in the seventh century. Whether 
Appar actually did the journey or no, the eleventh century 
conviction of the Saivas was that Appar did visit these 
shrines, and in all probability visited them in that order. 
The passage is certainly very good authority for the 
eleventh century geography of this tra<;t, and may not be 
altogether fictitious in regard to the seventh century 
when the Saiva saint is said to have performed the 
journey. Whatever may the actual truth of the 
historical fact, the geographical features cannot have 
changed so very thoroughly. 

Karikkarai may usefully be looked for in what must 
have been the high road of communication between 
Tirupasur which is near Tiruvallur, and Kalahasti. W’e 
know of roadways in this region in the eleventh century 
certainly, and references can be quoted even for the 
seventh and eighth centuries, to the existence of trunk 
roads, two of them at any rate, Vaduhavali East and 
Vaduhavali West, one of them described in Sanskrit also 
as Andrapatha. Therefore then there must have been a 
recognized way for these pilgrims from the holy shrines 
of importance like Tirupasur to perhaps the still more 
important shrine in Kajahasti itself. Somewhere midway 
between, rather nearer to Kalahasti than Tirupasur must 
have been the Saiva holy place Karikkarai, Fortunately 
for us we do find a Siva temple answering to that 
description. There is a place called Ramagiri now, 
straight* north of Tiruvallur and on the way to Kalahasti, 
somewhere between Nagalapuram and Satyave^u. 

As the place is located at present, it is regarded as in 
the basin of the river Arani which empties itself into 
the sea near the town of Pulicat. But Arani apparently 
is not the river Kari, as the place is some distance from 
the river itself. The place is none the less called 


Karikkarai in inscriptions datable from about the ninth 
century up to the days of the great Devaraya II of 
Vijayanagar about the middle of the fifteenth century. 
It is described by the alternative names, Valisvaram or 
Karikkarai, and the god enshrined in the temple is called 
Valisvaram Udaiyar or Karikkarai Udaiya Nayanar 
according as the name is Sanskrit or Tamil. But if 
that is Karikkarai it is not likely to help us very much 
so long as we do not find the., river Kari, which exactly is 
what we want. There is a river, however, formed of two 
small streams, one on each side of the Nagari Hills, the 
two uniting and forming what is called the Kalingi river, 
which passes through the railway station at Sulurpet, and 
empties itself into the Pulicat lake, not far from the salt 
manufacturing townlet of Tada. The western stream 
which is a respectable distance from Nagalapuram is 
called by the name Kalingi and the eastern is now named 
Kaleru. The source of the Kaleru is not any prohibitive 
distance from the place now called Ramagiri, the 
Valisvaram or Karikkarai of olden times. The Collector, 
Mr. C. A. Henderson, I.C.S., with whom I discussed the 
matter, considers that the identification is perfect 
though Ramagiri is not actually on the stream Kaleru, as 
.the level of water has gone down considerably through 
the centuries. But this defect notwithstanding, it is 
near enough on the map to mark the source of the holy 
river and perhaps the river has its obscure beginnings in 
the Hill Ramagiri itself. Hence the modern Ra?magiri, 
the Valisvaram or Karikkarai of the inscriptions and the 
Periyapuranam, must mark the spot in which, or in the 
immediate yicinity of which, there was a stream Kari. 
The Kaleru which takes its rise not far from it is suffici- 
ently near to it in geographical location and phonetic 
affinity to be equated with each other. The present day 



name Kaleru consists of two parts, the latter part ‘ eru ' is 
the equivalent of river, the first part ‘Kal ’ must be the 
equivalent of black, Kalais black in Tamil and Kannada, 
and Kala itself certainly occurs in Telugu meaning black 
in Sanskrit compounds, at any rate. It would not be 
surprising if the simple word has passed in this as in the 
other languages into popular use, its Sanskrit origin not- 
withstaMing. Kaleru therefore may be identified with the 
Kariyar. The identificatiop may be philologically satis- 
factory but it must be proved to be satisfactory geographi- 
cally and historically. Kaleru may be taken to be Kariyar 
in Tamil. But was that the region that was likely to be 
attacked by the combined army of the Chera and the 
Pandya advancing against, it may be even, the territory 
dependent upon Kanchi ? 

All that territory almost up to Nellore itself was 
included in the Tamil land in those early times. The 
Sangam poems have reference to a Tiraiyan, distinct 
from the Tondaman chief, Ilarh Tiraiyan, whose hill is 
described as Vengadam (Tirupati) ; his capital was, 
according to one Ahananuru poem,^ Pavattiri. Pavat- 
tiri can now be satisfactorily identified again from the 
Nellore inscriptions with Reddipalem, in Gudur taluk 
of ^the Nellore district. Inscriptions in it describe 
the place as Pavattiri in ‘ Kadalkonda Kakandi Nadu ’, 
Kakandi Nadu that is submerged in the sea. Till a 
comparatively late period inscriptic ns in the Gudur 
taluq, up to the frontier of the Pulicat lake in its 
northern extremity, are in Tamil. The old territory of 
the Tiraiyans must have extended as far north as that. 
In other words the northern frontier of the territory 

^ Poems 85 and 340. In the latter the author Narkirar seems to state that 
Fayattiri ]aa<i already ceased to«t)e a prosperous place 



dependent upon Kanchi must have been in that region. 
The name Kakandi Nadu has its own tale to tell. 
Kakandi is the name of Kaveripattinam, and the deriva- 
tion of that name is given in the Manimekhalai^ itself. 
When Parasurama came to attack the Chola king 
Kantama, he took the advice of Agastya and escaped, 
.leaving the kingdom in charge of an illegitimate son of 
his by name Kakandan, as the latter’s illegitimacy gave 
him immunity from attack tjy Parasurama. Hence the 
name Kakandi for the Chola capital. The description of 
this territory as Kadalkonda Kakandi Nadu would 
indicate that it at one time bore the name Kakandi Nadu 
which later got submerged in the sea. It is possible 
that the name Kakandi was given to it after conquest 
by the Cholas whenever that conquest actually took 
place, possibly under Karikala. 

But the point that requires to be cleared up is why 
should the Cheras and the Paudyas go so far out of their 
way, in an invasion even if it be against the territory of 
Kanchi in the far north. No explanation is given to us 
in the works. But the Sangam age is the period when 
this had become a sort of debatable frontier between 
the Andhras and the Tamils. The Andhra-Sata- 
vahanas had at one time extended their territory south- 
wards and the fact that their ship coins of pofbi Ifave 
been found almost as far south as Cuddalore would show 
that their aggression had not always been futile. It must 
have been therefore a peculiaiiy dangerous .frontier 
for the Tamils and as such liable to easy attack. Blit 
beyond this, we have no definite facts to explain why 
these two southern kings attacked the Chola kingdom on 
their extreme northern frontier in Manimekhalai itself. 


* X3cii. 11. 3J-38. 



The Malayaman chief Kari, however, is said to have 
fought single-handed against the Aryas^ and turned 
them^ back. This must, in point of time, have been 
anterior to the transaction under reference in the 
Manimekhalai, as then the Malayaman chief was still in 
possession of his territory unmolested. 

Haying said so much about this identification, we 
may bwng the historical references in the Manimekhalai 
to a close by referring to tl;e passage in which’ Kovalan’s 
father explains to Manimekhalai how he happened to be 
m Vanji at the time. When Manimekhalai visited Vanji 
for the purpose of learning the heretical systems, she met 
her pandfather there. He explained to her that on 


at Madura he made up his mind that life was not worth 
living and distributed all his wealth and became a lay 
discip e of the Buddha. He was living the life of a lay 
upasaka for some time in Puhar and came to visit Vanji to 
worship aUhe chaitya erected for the Buddha by his own 

in the ninth generation. 
As the latter was a great friend of the contemporary 

vicinitv orth ’ r the immediate 

father hir^s^f^ city of Vanji. Manimekhalai’s grand- 
father himself arrived there luckily on that day when 
Senguttuvan and his royal ladies, spending a 

time in the garden, saw a number of Buddhist holy ones 

descending from the air anri +oi • ° 

the earden 0^7 , a ^ “PO" a rock in 

me garden. Understanding their holy character W 

gurtuvan entertained them, and, as the/ were expound W 

the teaching of the Buddha to the kine- hp h' u 

arrived there and had the benefit of it at ^ 

roya, party. Hearing from fhem^l Puht^aT^oj:; 

^^Narrinai 170, 


to be destroyed by the sea in a short time, he made up 
his mind to stay in Vanji alone. They also gave him 
the information that Kovalan and his ’wife after a certain 
number of births would ultimately reach Nirvana in 
their last birth at Kapilavastu. This passage has been 
somewhat misunderstood, and Senguttuvan has been 
even made the contemporary of the ancestor of Kovalan 
in the ninth generation. It seems quite clear however 
that Kovalan’s father first tajces up the tale of his arrival 
there at Vanji when Sengjttuvan actually entertained 
the holy ones, and congratulates himself upon having 
had the benefit of what those holy ones had to teach 
Senguttuvan and his court. The purpose of his visit 
he proceeds to narrate was to offer worship at the chaitya 
which his own ancestor built in the outer gardens of the 
city of Vanji. The two incidents are thrown together 
one after the other, and may be mistaken at a somewhat 
casual reading. These passages in the Manimekhalai 
state in the clearest terms the contemporaneity of Sen- 
guttuvan Chera to the events described in the 
Silappadhikaram and the Manimekhalai. It is hardly 
necessary for us to go out of the Manimekhalai to 
establish this contemporaneity although we have much 
valuable evidence to confirm it otherwise in the 
Silappadhikaram and the Sangam collection Padirrup- 

Before concluding this part of the subject, it is 
necessary to consider two points of some importance 
relevant to the subject. The first of these is such 
astronomical details as we get in the Manimekhalai 
which may,enable the fixing of a date by calculation, if 
need be. The first chronological feature that appears 
is where the birthday asterism of the Buddha is given in 
canto xi. The point of the » reference is that the 



miraculous Buddha-seat is said to appear on the day 
when the Buddha himself was born, namely in the season 
of the early sun, in the second sign of the zodiac 
(Jiis/iabha), in the fourteenth asterism, ‘ the begging 
bowl would appear at the same point of time as the 
Buddha himself.’ This is followed by a reference that 
that day and that hour was that at which Tivatilakai, the 
guardian deity was actually giving this information. 
The accepted date of the Buddha’s birth is the Nakshatra 
Vaisaka^ and the full moon day of Vai'saka (month). The 
asterism referred to therefore is Visaka. This is said 
here in the poem to be the one following the thirteenth, 
that is, the fourteenth asterism. This would be the 
fourteenth only if we count it from Krttika and not 
from Asvim. The point immediately arises whether 
this statement has reference to the period anterior to the 
days of Varahamihira who is said to have introduced 
‘ Asvinyadi calculation ’, that is, counting from Asmm, 
instead of from Krttika. Probably it was so ; at the 
same time it is possible to argue that this is a statement 
taken from current northern tradition, and may have 
reference to any period since the time of the Buddha. 
If the author is merely quoting a current tradition like 
that, it could offer us no test of time. 

The next reference is in canto xii where a prediction 
is made that ‘ i6i6 years after the time the Buddha will 
appear.’ There are other references besides in the body 
of the work to the appearance of the Buddha. In fact, 
it Is a stock story. Kovalan and Kannaki were to be 
born when the Buddha appears on earth in northern 
Magadha and, becoming his direct disciples, were to 
attain to nirvatta. Manimekhalai was also informed that 
she would come to the end of her present existence in 
Kanch), and, after a number of births, she would be born 


a man in northern Magadha when the Buddha should be 
preaching there, and, becoming his first Savaka (Sravaka) 
disciple, would attain nirvana. All these references are 
of the nature of predictions and have reference to the 
coming Buddha, not to the Buddha that had actually come 
and gone. These cannot be drawn into evidence for 
purposes of chronology. 

The next point for consideration is a reference to 
kuccharakudikai, the gutika or a small temple described 
as kucchara. Kucchara is the Tamil equivalent of the 
word Gurjara in Sanskrit, referring either to the country 
or to the people of Gujarat when that had come into 
being. The learned commentator has suggested this 
equation in the course of his comments. This had been 
taken to fix the age of the poem by the fact that the 
Gurjaras were not in India before the beginning of the 
sixth century A.D. at the earliest. The reference is to 
the temple of Champapati, the patron deity of the city of 
Puhar. The Mahamahopadhyaya’s interpretation is 
based on the tradition that the Gurjaras were well known 
artisans in building. There undoubtedly is a later 
tradition to that effect. The Gurjaras were good builders 
but there are references in the Manimekhalai to artisans 
from various countries engaged in the building of the hall 
in the royal garden in Puhar, among whom the Gurjaras 
as such do not figure. There are references to the people 
of Magadha, Avanti, Yavana and Mahratta, but no 
reference to the Gurjara at all. This omission is a clear 
indication that the reputation of the Gurjaras as experts 
in building had not been known then. In a correspond- 
ing passage from the Perumkadai, which the Mahamaho- 
padhyaya quotes, there is a reference to jewellers from 
Magadha, carpenters from Yavana, smiths from Avanti, 
painters from Kosala, workmen yi stones from Vatsa, and 



there is a name gone of expert goldsmiths. In none of 
these do we find any reference to the Gurjaras as such. 
If the omitted name should be that of the Gurjaras in the 
Perumkadai, it would still be workmen in gold, and it is 
not the goldsmith that is likely to be under reference in 
the gutika, or small temple to the goddess Champapati 
in the Chakravalakottam at Puhar. Hence the interpre- 
tationethat kucckara refers actually to the Gurjaras is at 
Ae very best doubtful. V^ery probably the name Gurjara 
itself is derived from a Tamil or Dravidian word 
kucchara, and this possibility must be investigated care- 
fully. In any case, it cannot be held as decisive evidence 
to prove either that the work is later than the sixth 
century because of the occurrence of this expression or 
that the expression itself is an interpolation. In any 
case, with our present knowledge of this particular 
question, no decisive inference is possible. The 
question, therefore, of the age of Manimekhalai will have 
to be decided on other grounds than this. 



In this part we propose to deal with the matter 
contained in chapters xxvii, xxix, and xxx of the Mani- 
mekhalai. These refer respectively to the heretical 
systems of thought, Buddhist logic and Buddhist teach- 
ing as such. Chapter xxvii considers ten systems 
which ultimately resolve into five different religi- 
ous systems according to the work itself. The ten 

i ^ generally described as 

P amana Vsda of the Vgidika systems, {2) Saiva Vsda, 



(3) Brahma Vsda, (4) NUrayamya or Vaishnava Vada, (5) 
Feda Vsda. All these together constituted what Mani- 
mekhalai assumed as the heretical systems based on the 
Veda. Collectively they may go by one name Vaidika 
Vsda, or the teachings which accepted the Veda. Then 
follows the system of the Ajivaka as taught by Markali, 
Markali Gosala of the Jainaand Buddhist tradition, and 
the Niganta or Nirgrantha, with the chief tbacher 
‘ Arhat worshipped of all the Jndras’. The first of these 
systems is what is generally understood to be distinct 
from Jainism throughout its history more or less. But 
in South India, as in the Manimekhalai itself, the two 
systems are regarded as branches of a common system 
which is spoken of as that of the Samanas or Amana, 
the Sanskrit Sramana, which had a wider general signi- 
ficance than the Tamil equivalents. The authoritative 
text-book of the Ajivakas is stated in this work, to be 
Navakadir, a work the name of which has not come to 
our notice elsewhere in these discussions. The con- 
fusion between Jainism and that of the Ajivakas has 
been as old as the Divyavadana ascribable to the age of 
Asoka in the third century B.C. The Ajivakas are said 
to have flourished in a place called Samadanda in the 
work Nilakesi as yet unpublished. The Manimekhalai 
seems to regard these two as one system that of the 
Samanas or Jains. A later Tamil work, Nilakesi and 
the Saiva canonical work Sivagnanasiddhi state dis- 
tinctly that the two systems were branches of one. In 
other places and other conditions the Ajivakas were 
confounded* with Buddhists, as in the Kannada country 
about the time contemporary with Sivagnanasiddhi. 

^ For this confusion between the religion of the Jainas and the Ajivakas 
there is very good reason. In the matter of externals, the order instituted by 
Markali Gosala, the founder of the Ajivakas, a body of naked ascetics, 



Then follow the three systems Sankhya treated with 
some elaboration, Vaiseshika, the substance of which is 
given perhaps a little less fully than Sankhya but equally 
clearly, and lastly the Bhutavada, the atheistic system, 
treated as almost the same as the Lokayata of other 
works. After having heard all that the teachers of these 
respective systems have had to say in Vanji, Manimekhalai 
ridicules the last one, and, still in disguise, satisfied her- 
self that she had acquired a competent knowledge of the 
‘ Five Systems ’ notwithstanding the fact that she enquired 
of the ten teachers and obtained knowledge of their 

We already drew attention to the confusion that 
prevailed between the system of the Ajivakas and the 
Jains both being regarded as one in the Tamil country. 
While the Manimekhalai, in its final passage, seems to 
include the two in one, it still treats of the two separate- 
ly to the extent of being regarded, if not as independent, 
at least as separate systems, which is somewhat unlike 
the treatment accorded to it in South India in times 
later than this. But it must be noted here in passing 
that in the Silappadhikaram Kannaki’s father is said to 
have distributed his wealth among the Ajivakas of great 


resembled the Digambara Jainas. Apart from other similarities in the details 
of teaching between the two, there is one point where the similarity is very 
close. People are said to be born in six colours in an ascending order, 
namely, black, dark blue, yellow, red, golden and white, according to the 
Ajivakas. In the process of transmigration people have to pass on in regular 
ascending order from one to the other till reaching the white birth, they 
could attain to birthlessness. That is the teaching of the Ajivakas accord- 
ing^ to the Manimekhalai; that is the teaching of the Ajivakas according 
to givagnana Siddhiar ; that is also the teaching of the Jains according to 
the Jivakachintamani (Muttiyilambakam 513, and Nachchinarkiniyar’s 
comment thereon.). Such closeness of external appearance and internal 
conviction would be justiHcation enough if surrounding communities took 
the one sect for the other, '' 



penance, and himself became an upusaka^ his wife 
having given up life completely by putting an end to 
herself, as did Kovalan’s own mother- This is a very 
important reference inasmuch as the religion of the 
Ajivakas, if it could be so described, was undoubtedly 
practised in South India at the time. One other minor 
point to note is that the Sankhya system is treated with 
a certain degree of fullness. * 

Coming to the Vaidika systems, there is much that 
would throw light upon the age of the work, although 
the point has received no attention so far. Taking up 
the pramEna vEda, the first section, there are three 
authorities specifically quoted, Veda Vyasa, Krtakoti 
and Jaimini. These are stated to have laid down that 
the valid pramEnas were ten, eight and six respectively. 
Interpreted on the basis of the text itself, Veda Vyasa 
must be given credit for the ten, Krtakoti for the eight, 
and Jaimini for the six. This is a point of great 
importance. The latest translator (the Panini edition) 
of the Mimarhsa Sutras of Jaimini, Pandit Mohanlal 
Sandal, makes Jaimini responsible for eight pramEnas 
and gives the credit of the reduction to six to Sahara, 
the commentator, which is obviously a mistake as we 
shall show. The Manimekhalai treats of the itn pramE- 
nas at the commencement of the chapter more or less 
fully, and they are (i) Katchi (Pratyaksha) ; (2) Karuttu, 
(Anumana) ; (3) Uvamam (Sans. Upamana) ; (4) Aga- 
mam (Sans. Agama, otherwise called Sabda) ; (5) 
Aruttapatti (Sans. Arthapatti) ; (6) lyalbu (Sans. 
Svabhava) ; (7) Aitiham or Ulahurai (Sans. Aitihya) ; 
(8) Abhavam (Sans. Abhava) ; (9) Mitchi or Olibu or 
01ivu(Sans. Parisesha) ; (10) Undaneri orUllaneri (Sans 


Canto xxvii. 11. S3-100, 



Sambhava).^ These are the ttniviSS. pramanas defined 
and illustrated and have to be ascribed to Vyasa. The 
Manimekhalai itself winds up the discussion with 
stating six as the prammias current ‘at the time’ of 
the composition of the work. They are, the first five 
and the eighth of the ten recited above.^ It would be 
desirable to know what the actual eight pramanas are 
whicSi are ascribed to the other author if the six of 
Manimekhalai should be precognized as that of Jaimini 
as we should. To the six given at the end, add 
Sambhavam and Aitihyam of the ten ; and these eight 
therefore may be ascribed to Krtakoti ® whoever he was. 

Krtakoti is a name which has so far remained little 
known elsewhere, and I believe up to the present time 
there has been no other reference in European works to 
this Krtakoti whether it be the name of an author, as 
presumably we shall have to take it to be, or of a work. 
The truth may be a combination of both. Manime- 
khalai has preserved for us the name and this important 
detail that he was responsible for the formulating of 
eight alone of the ten prmianas as valid. It is therefore 
of the utmost importance if we could know something 
about this Krtakoti. The other two are well-known 
names. It is the science of Mimamsa, one of the 


^ Veda Vyasa's 10, 

= (1) 












f (1) 
























These two gronpings are given in the Panini translatjpn, the six under 
1.1.5 as those of the commentator ; the eight are given in the introduction, 
in the analysis of Pada I, These seem really, .to be those of Jaimini "and 
Vrttikara respectively, the latter being quoted by gabarasvamin . See 
Keith's Karma Mimamsa, p. 8,^the passage quoted below. 



Upangas of the Vedas, that sets itself up to enquire 
into the rationale of Vedic sacrifices, etc., and as such 
feels called upon to enter into knowledge and the 
nature of knowledge ; pramaoias, being means of cogni- 
tion, naturally come under its sphere of enquiry. Vida 
Vyasa is well known as the author of Uttara Mimarhsa, 
Jaimini is equally well known as the author of Purva 
Mimarhsa. Who is Krtakoti then ? » 

Light comes from a very unexpected quarter in a 
work published recently by the late Mahamahopadhyaya 
Ganapati Sastri of Trivandrum. We find reference to 
this Krtakoti in the Prapanchahrdaya, as the work is 
called, under the chapter heading Upanga Prakaranam. ^ 

^ Chapter iv. pp. 38-50. 

Prapanchahrdayam (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, XLV). 

Updngaprakaranam , 

Tatra sangopangasya vedasya purvottarakanda sambhinnasya aseshava- 
kyartha vicharaparayanam Mimamsa Sastram. 

Tadidam vimSatyadhyaya nibaddhain. Tatra shodasa adhyaya nibad- 
dham Purvamimamsa Sastra.m purvakandasya dharmavicharaparayanam 
Jaiminikrtam ; Tadanyadadhyaya Chatushkam Uttaramimamsa ^astram. 
uttarakandasya Brahma vicharaparayanam Vyasakrtam. 

Tasya vimSatyadhyaya nibaddhasya Mimamsa Sastrasya Krtakoti nama- 
dheyam bhashyam Bddhayanena krtam. Tad granthabahulyabhayadii- 
pekshya kinchid samkshiptam Upavarshenakrtam. Tadapi mandamatin 
prati dushpratipadam vistirnatvadity upekshya Shodagalakshana Pl^va- 
mimamsa Sastramatrasya Devasvamina atisamkshiptam krtam. Bhavada- 
senapi krtam Jaiminiya bhashyam. Punardvikande Dharmamimainsa Sastre- 
purvasya tantrakandasya Acharya Sabarasvaminatisamkshepena Sankai- 
shakandam dvitiyam upekshya krtam bhashyam. Tatha Devatakandasya 
Sankarshena. Brahmakandasya Bhagavatpada, Brahraadatta, Bhaskara- 
dibhirmatabhedenapi krtam. Tatha Sabarbhashyam vakhyarthamabhail- 
amabhyupagamya Bhatta Prabhakarabhyam dvidha vyakhyatam. Tatra 
bhavana paratvena Bhattakumarena, niyogaparataya Prabhakarena. 

Tasya vimSatjadhayaya nibaddhasya Mimamsa Sastrasyapratyadhyaya- 
marthaviSeshah pradargyate. Tatra Mimamsa Sastre pramaiia prameyavi- 
charah kriyate. Tatra sangopangovedah pramanam. Prameyah puru- 
sharthala . Tasya pramana bhiitasya vedasy a pratyaksbadi laukikapramanaih 
shadbhirapramanyam krtakatvanityatva ^paurusheyatva paratantratvadi 



This work states that it is the function of the Mimamsa 
Sastra to determine the meaning of all that is stated 
in the is of two parts, Purva and Uttara. 

This Mimamsa Sastram, continues the statement, was a 
work_ of twenty chapters of which the first sixteen 
constitutes the Purva Kanda, which sets itself to enquire 
into toe Dharma and is said to have been made by 
aiming The remaining part of four chapters forms the 
latter part, Uttara Mimamsa, and has for its subject an 
^quiiy into Brahmam and' was composed by Vyasa 
Then follows the important statement that the science of 
Mimamsa thus constituted of twenty chapters had a 
commentary by name Krtakoti composed by Bodhayana. 
As this commentary was very vast, an abridgment of it 
was made by Upavarsha. It is following Upavarsha 
that another commentator by name Devasvamin made 
^ IS commentary upon the sixteen chapters constituting 
to. Purva Mimamsa, having regard to the fact thal 
otherwise it was much too large a subject for study. This 

Upavarsha. Another commentator, Bhavadasa byname 
a so compiled a commentary on the work of Jaimini Of 
Aese sixteen chapters, chapters constituting the Purva 
Mimamsa or Dharma Kanda as it is called, the first 

settinaits following four were called Devata Kanda 
setting Itself uptoenquiring into the Devatas, invoked by 

the various mantras of the Vedas. Of these the first two 

?hr;“to Sabaras^^mto! 

there was another commentary by Sankarshana for the 

whole of the Devata KMa (bocks ,3 to t6) apart”! 



the Brahma Kanda (books 17 to 20). There were different 
commentaries on this last according to difference of views 
by venerable commentators, Bhagavatpada, Brahma- 
datta, Bhaskara and others. Following Sahara’s com- 
mentary, but differing from him in views, Bhatta, and 
Prabhakara composed their own two part commentaries. 
Bhatta Kumarila’s commentary follows the bhavana, and 
Prabhakara, niyoga, etc. • 

It is clear from this that the Mimaihsa Sastra was 
regarded as one science of twenty books, though 
compiled by two authors, Jaimini the first sixteen 
chapters, and Vyasa the following four.' The whole 
work was commented upon by Bodhayana and the 
commentary was called Krtakoti. This is the commen- 
tary on the whole work which was abridged by 
Upavarsha. It is after Upavarsha that the subject came 
to be divided into two, and Devasvamin was responsible 
for taking the first sixteen chapters and treating of that 
portion as Purva separately. He was followed in this 
by Bhavadasa. Up to the time of Devasvamin there- 
fore, the work was regarded as one. This is a point of 
very great importance, as the Mimariisa is generally 
regarded as two in orthodox parlance. The Poem 
Manimekhalai treats the Mimaiiisa as one as does the 

» * m 

Vishnu Purana,^ and not as two separate Sastras as in 
later usage. 

Another point has come out clear from this, that is, 
that Krtakoti was originally the name of the commentary 
from which the author himself got the name afterwasds. 

^ This division which is quite clear in the Prapanchahrdaya itself is made 
clear beyond doubt in the introduction to SarvaSidhanta Sangraha ascribed 
to Sankaracharya (§1. 20). This work otherwise confirms the description 
given above of the Mimamsa Sastra substantially (^L 17-22 idem). 

® HI, vii. 



His real name, however, was Bodhayana, Bodhayana 
wrote a commentary on the whole of the Mimarhsa 
Sastra of twenty chapters. 

Writers on Mimarhsa know of a commentary called 
Vrtti, and the commentator is generally spoken as 
Vrttikara. So far not much has been known of this 
author and who he was. The Sahara Bhashya, the 
earliest^ commentary extant, refers to the Vrttikara and 
Upavarsha. The Vrttikara has been taken by Jacobi to 
have been a commentator who followed Upavarsha be- 
cause Sahara uses the honorific Bhagavan before 
Upavarsha, and not before the Vrttikara. But Keith 
points out that in other connections Bhagavan and 
Acharya are used before the term Vrttikara, which 
passage Professor Jacobi has overlooked. Dr. Ganganath 
Jha tried to identify him with Bhavadasa. As was 
pointed out above, Bhavadasa was the second of the 
commentators who commented upon the Purva Mimamsa 
alone. Keith says ‘ that the extract from the Vrttikara 
(Kumarila’s comment on ii. 3, 16) proves that an impor- 
tant addition has been made to the teaching of the 
Mimarhsa in the shape of the introduction of discussions 
of the validity of knowledge and its diverse forms.’ 
Could we not equate the Vrttikara in these circum- 
staiices with Bodhayana, the author of the Krtakoti and 
is not the commentary Krtakoti actually referred to as 
the Vrtti ? Professor Jacobi made the guess that the 
Vrttikara must be Bodhayana and the Prapanchahrdaya 
confirms* this. The Manimekhalai reference to Krtakoti 
seems to throw welcome light upon the obscurity that 
has enshrouded the personality of the Vrttikara quoted. 
What egregious mistakes were made in regard to this 
Vrttikara becomes clear when the latest work on the 
subject, Dasgupta’s History of Indian Philosophy refers 



to him as having commented upon the Sahara Bhashya’^ 
itself, and the Panini translator of the Purva Mimarhsa 
convicts Ramanuja of error in having treated Bodhayana 
as the Vrttikara. He makes the remark that Upavarsha 
was the first commentator on the Mimarhsa, and offers 
the remark in a footnote that some are of opinion that 
Bhavadasa was the Vrttikara. How unfounded these 
views are seems clear from the extracts abo^ye. For 
our present purpose it^ is^ clear that the Manimekhalai 
refers to the Mimarhsa Sastra as one and accepts the six 
pramS>ms ot Jaimini as current at the time, thus clearly 
indicating a period before the Sahara Bhashya. Vyasa 
propounded the ten prama-nas^ Krtakoti eight and 
Jaimini six. These are under reference in the Sahara 
Bhashya and the six are ascribed by mistake to 
Sabarasvamin instead of to Jaimini in the Panini office 
translation of the Mimarhsa Sastra. 

^ P. 370. That Jaimini’s Mlmamsa Sutras (which are with us the founda- 
tions of Mimamsa) are only a comprehensive and systematic compilation 
of one school is evident from the references he gives to the views in different 
matters of other preceding writers who dealt with the subject. These 
works are not available now, and we cannot say how much of what Jaimini 
has written is his original work and how much of it borrowed. But it may 
be said with some degree of confidence that it was deemed so masterly a 
work at least of one school that it has survived all other attempts that were 
made before him. Jaimini’s Mimamsa Sutras were probably written about 
200 B.c. and are now the groundwork of the Mimamsa S3«stem. 
Commentaries were written on it by various persons such as Bhartrmitra 
(alluded to in Nyayaratnakara, verse 10 of Slokavarttika) , Bhavadasa, 
fPratijhasutra 63) Hari and Upavarsha (mentioned in Sastradipika) . It 
is probable that at least some of these preceded Sahara, the writer of the 
famous commentaries known as the ^abar a- bhashya. It is difScult to say 
anything about the time in which he flourished. Dr. Ganganath Jha would 
have him about 57 b.c. on the evidence of a current verse which speaks of 
king Vikramaditya as being the son of Sabarasvamin by a Kshatriya wife. 
This Bhashya jpf Sahara is the basis of the later Mimamsa works. It was 
commented upon by an unknown , person alluded to as Varttikakara by 
Prabhakara and merely referred to as ‘ Yathahuh ’ (as they say) by Kumarila. 
Dr. Ganganath Jha says that Prabhakara ’s commentary Brhati on the 
Sabara-bhashya was based I upon the worfe^of this Varttikakara, 



The late Dr. G. Thibaut’s remarks on Bodhayana 
seem apposite here. 

^ ‘ It appears that Ramanuja claims, and’ by Hindu 
writers is generally admitted, to follow in his bhashya the 
authority of Bodhayana, who had composed a vrtti on 
the Sutras. Thus we read in the beginning of the Sri- 
bhashya (Pandit, New Series vii, p. 163) “ Bhagavad- 
Bodhayana-krtam vistirnam brahmasutra vrttim purva- 
charyah samkikshipus tapmatanusarena sutraksharani 
vyakhyasyante.” Whether the Bodhayana to whom that 
vytti\.% ascribed is to be identified with the author of the 
Kalpa-sutra, and other works, cannot at present be 
decided. ^ But that an ancient vrtti on the Sutras con- 
nected with Bodhayana’s name actually existed, there 
is no reason to doubt. Short quotations from it are 
met with in a few places in the Sri-bhashya, and, as we 
have seen above, Sankara’s commentators state that 
their author s polemical remarks are directed against the 
Vrttikara. In addition to Bodhayana, Ramanuja appeals 
to quite a series of ancient teachers, Purvacharyas, who 
earned on the tradition as the teaching of the Vedanta 
and the meaning of the Sutras.’ ^ This makes the position 
clear that presumably the vrittikara under reference is 
Bodhayana, and the Vrtti has reference in this context to 
the ' on the Brahma Sutras. Is this not the 
Bhagavan Acharya Vrttikara of the Sahara Bhashya ii 
3,16? Sankara Hn the Vedanta Sutra iii. 3, r, states 
clearly that Upayarsha wrote on both the texts’ Purva 
anu Uttara Mimarfisa, and Upavarsha is stated in the 
Prapanchahrdaya to have merely abridged the vast com- 
®od^iayana’s Krtakoti on both the sections of 
the Mimamsa, both Dharma kanda and the Brahma kanda. 

^ Sacred Books of the East, vol. 268. * Sankara Bhashya, pt. ii. 


Does not the therefore refer to the Krtakoti of the 
Acharya Bodhayana, and could we not therefore take the 
Vf ttikara to be Bodhayana himself ? 

We have the following references to Krtakoti in other 
places. The first is in Sankara’s Samyami Namamala, ix. 
of Burnell’s Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Tanjore 
Library, p. 47. Here occurs the verse : — 

Halabhutistu’ pavarshah Krtakoti Kavischa sah. 
This half sloka occurs in tlje dictionary Vaijayanti as 
line 308 on page 95, of Oppert’s edition. In the 
Trikandasesha, Brahmavarga, sloka 23, also contains 
the name : 

Upavarsho Halabhutih Krtakotir Ayachitah. 

In both these cases it will be seen that the name in 
either form Krtakoti Kavi or Krtakoti is identified with 
Upavarsha. But the reference in the Vaijayanti and the 
Samyaminamamala seems to indicate, in the light of the 
Prapanchahrdaya extract, Upavarsha’s abridgment of 
the vast commentary Krtakoti, notwithstanding the fact 
that the particle Kavi is omitted in the Trikandasesha 
quotation. Sucharitamisra’s Kasika, a commentary on 
the Sloka- Varttika contains the following reference in a 
discussion on the pramanas : — 

Nyayavistare hi prasiddha sadharmyat sadhya 
sadhanam upamanam ity uktam. 

Tatah Parasarya matena arthapttir udahrta, 

TaduttarakaJam Tanmatanusarina Krtakotina uktat- 


In the spotavUda'' of the same work occurs the 
following ; — • 

Atra bha^hyakarena kaha sabdah iti prshtva gak- 
araukara visarjaniya iti 

^ Ibid., 294. lam indebted to the Pandits of the Government Oriental 
Manuscripts Library for some of these refereSces. 




Bhagavan Upavarsha matena Uttaram dattam. 

Tatra Upavarshasya etad darsanam napunarasyeti 
bhraiiti nirakaranartham aha Pratyaksha iti ! 

From these references in Indian Literature that I 
have been able to collect, it comes out clearly that Upa- 
varsha is the most quoted author in regard to the 
commentary on both Purva and Uttara Mimarhsa. He is 
referred to even by the name Krtakoti itself, sometimes 
with the particle kavi (meaning writer), sometimes with- 
out. In deciding the question whether Upavarsha and 
the Vrttikara are the same, it is almost clear from the 
references given by Professor Keith himself that the two 
have to be regarded as distinct. The Prapanchahrdaya 

Karma MImamsa by Keith, pp. 7, 8. 

‘It is, therefore, not improbable that he is also in error in finding any 
reference to the Vijnanavada, for the passage seems to deal with one topic 
only, and that the Sunyavada. It follows, accordingly, that the date of the 
Vrttikara was probably not later than the fourth century a. D. since, had 
he lived later, he would hardly have omitted an explicit discussion of the 
tenets of the idealistic school of Buddhism. 

‘ The name of the Vrttikara is uncertain. The conjecture that he was 
Bbavadasa mentioned in one place by Kumarila, may be dismissed as 
wholly without support. The current opinion makes him to be Upavarsha, 
who we know from Sankara (Vedanta Sutra, iii. 3, 53) wrote on both the 
texts. To this the objection has been brought that in the passage cited from 
the Vrttikara by Sabarasvamin there is a reference to Upavarsha with the 
epithet Bhagavat, implying that he was in the eyes of the Vrttikara an 
autnor of venerable authority. It is probable, however, that the citation 
from the Vrttikara is only a resume not a verbatim quotation, and that 
Sabarasvamin is responsible for the reference to Upavarsha, the Vrttikara’s 
proper name, and for this view support may be derived from the mode in 
which the Vrttikara and Upavarsha are referred to by Kumarila elsewhere 
(m. 3, 16)*. If this view is rejected, it is possible that he is Bodhayana, who 
certainly wrote on the Vedanta Sutra, but this theory is a bare and un- 
necessary conjecture, seeing that Bodhayana nowhere else appears as a 
Mimamsa authority. Of other presumably early commentators we hear of 
Bhartrmitra and Hari, but there is no reason to identify either of these with 
the Vrttikara. 

‘ The extract from the Vrttikara proves that an important addition has been 
made to the teaching of the Mimamsa in the shape of the introduction of 
discussions of the validity of kifowledge and its diverse forms,’ 



statement is indubitably clear that Upavarsha’s services 
consisted in merely abridging the commentary Krtakoti, 
and therefore the author of the Krtakoti must be dijfferent 
from him. The point of importance for us is whether 
the Krtakoti under reference is the Krtakotikavi-Upa- 
varsha or Bodhayana, who was actually the author of the 
original work Krtakoti on both the sections of the 
Mimamsa, Purva and Uttara. The fact that the'Mani- 
mekhalai places Krtakoti on a footing with the authors 
of the Mimamsa, Vedavyasa and Jaimini, and the 
importance that it attaches to his position as one 
formulating eight as against the ten of Veda- 

vyasa, and the six of Jaimini, it would be fairer to regard 
him as Bodhayana rather than Upavarsha. From the 
extract quoted above from Sucharitamisra’s Kasika, 
Krtakoti came after Vyasa Par^arya in point of time, 
and was Vyasa’s follower in point of teaching. Whether 
it be the one or the other, the Manimekhalai knows of 
the Mimamsa only as a single system and it does not 
know of it as two separate systems, as it had come to be 
recognized later. 

One point before passing out of this discussion, and that 
is, that the six systems, as current at the time, are recited 
in the Manimekhalai as Lokayata, Bauddha, Sankya, 
Naiyayika, Vaiseshika and Mimarhsa. There are several 
points to note in regard to this list of six. The orthodox 
systems accepted now-a-days consist of three pairs ; 
Vaiseshika and Nyaya, Sankhya and Yoga, and |he two 
Mimaihsas, Purva and Uttara. These are the accepted 
Vaidika systems. The Manimekhalai recital differs in 
the following particulars. Mimamsa is still treated as 
one ; that means that the work must have been composed 
at a time when the Krtakoti and the Upavarsha com- 
mentaries were holding the fieWi and the division of 



Devasvamin had not come into existence. The Mani- 
melchalai includes Lokayatam and Bauddham amon^ the 
Vaidika systems. It has not treated of Lokayata in this 
chapter unless we take Lokayata and Bhutavada as 
synonymous as indicated in the text, the latter including 
the former. It would seem strange that the Bauddha 
religion should be included among the systems to which 
the Vaidika praftianas applied.* But it is so stated 
here. The various system^ quoted in a commentary on 
the Vignanamatra Sastra later than Asvagosha’s time^ 
show a certain similarity to the recital in the Mani- 
mekhalai, and peihaps they are both of them referable 
to about the same time. 

One other significant feature is that the Yoga system 
as such is not in reference in the chapter at all. Sankhya 
is treated by itself, and without any association with 

^According to Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad Sastri all early 
Buddhists from Buddha to Vasubandhtt were indebted to Akshapada for 
their pramanas, or instruments of right knowledge. 

/- precisely known how many philosophical schools, called 

hrihakas by Buddhists, were flourishing just at the time of ASvagosha. The 
Nt^ana and the Vintala Klritinirdeca Sutra raention of them 
which were exishng at the time of the Buddha. (1) Parana Kagyapa,. (2) 
Maskann Gosaliputra. (3) Sanjaya Vairattiputra, (4) Ajita Kek- 
kambala (S) Kakada Katyayana. (6) Nirgranta Jnatiputra. In a 
commenta^ on the Vtmanamaira sastra however, which is a later produc- 

tlrthaka^cdo^X^ are enumerated. 
They are (1) the Samkhya school. (2) the Vaigeshika school, (3) the 

beKevelS! M school which 

tha as the creator, (S) the school which maintains 

SitS -171 thr T’ 1 ^ l Space is the 

l maintains that Water is the creator. (8) 

says that the creation comes from the quarters, (10) the school which 
ZInSnl Sf imStSV*"® existence, (11) the school which 

ma ntams the immortality of arfaculate sounds, i.e., the JUimamsa school, 
sif n? ^ f Materialism. For further references 

^rt^ka^ 777- Tetsugaku (Philosophical systems of the 

p lS^ Note 2 )’ Awakening of the Faith, 



Yoga^ as in the orthodox acceptation of the six systems. 
Professor Jacobi was inclined to take it that among the 
various Sutra’' systems the Yoga system of Patanjali is 
the latest and refers the system to about the fifth 
century. That seems supported by the fact that the 
Yoga system finds no mention in the treatment of the 
heretical systems in Manimekhalai. Professor Jacobi also 
held that the Sankhya system was comparativefy late, 
the contrary seems inferable from the recital in the 
Manimekhalai. Hence chapter xxvii of the Mani- 
mekhalai is of the greatest importance to the history of 
Indian culture, Sanskritic as well as Dravidian, and an 
attempt at arriving at an approximately correct age for the 
classic is not a mere fad of the student of research but is 
of the utmost importance to any correct understanding 
of the character of Indian development as a whole. 

Chapter xxix introduces us to the Buddhist system 
of thought though not to the actual teaching of Buddhism 
itself. Like the sister systems, this has also its own 
particular method of enquiry into the validity of know- 
ledge and the actual means of attaining to valid know- 
ledge. It is therefore essential to a correct understanding 
of the actual teaching of Buddhism that prevailed at the 
time that a preliminary enquiry should be made into 
knowledge and the means of attaining to that knowle*dge 
by a logically valid method. Chapter xxix of the 
Manimekhalai therefore presents us with a treatise On 
Buddhist logic as taught in the schools of Buddhism at 
Kanchi or more generally in the Tamil country. *It 
would, therefore, be very useful if we could understand 
the treatise^ as a whole first and then compare it with 
treatises of other authors, otherwise known to us, if 

1 J. A. O. S. 1911, <)p. 1-29. 



possible of the same locality, or of systems that prevailed 
in the near vicinity. Luckily for us we have some know- 
ledge of a well-known propounder of Buddhism who 
hailed from Kanchl, but controverting all over India, and 
who had left behind treatises on the subject, which 
though considered, till within very recent times, to have 
been entirely lost to India, have been preserved in Tibet 
and Cnina in correct and complete translations. Quite 
recently one or two of these have been discovered in 
manuscript in India itself and are likely to be made 
available in a complete form soon. 

The chapter begins with the statement that the 
recognized teacher of Buddhism is Jinendra which is 
another name for Buddha, and this name should not be 
confounded with Jina Vardhamana or Mahavira, the 
founder of Jainism. According to this teacher the accept- 
ed pramanas are only two, Pratyaksha and Aniimana. 
It is generally assumed that the Buddhists always re- 
cognized only two pramatias which, on the face of it, 
seems a very unlikely position.^ A certain number of 
pramaims must have been enunciated and applied, and 
each system. Buddhism among them, must have examin- 
ed these, and recognized only those that seemed valid by 
a method of inclusion or by that of rejection. It will be 
cle&r from the Mariimekhalai that the other four pramunas 
were also current at the time which were alike applicable to 
Buddhism -p and of these six, Buddhist teachers actually 

J PratyS-ksham Kalpanapodam 
Nama Jatyadyasamyutam. 

2 Mah. Pandit Haraprasad Sastri. J, B. and 0. R. 5., vok viii, p. 23. 

‘ For we know distinctly from Chinese and Japanese sctirces that Analogy 
and Authority were great polemical m.struments in the Ijands of the early 
Buddhists, i.e., all early Buddhists from Buddha to Vasubandhu were in- 
debted to Akshapada for their pramanas or polemical instruments of right 
knowledge. Maitreya discarded Analogy, and Dignaga discarded Authority, 
and made Nyaya pure logic, in Mie English sense of the term/ 



selected two by the method of inclusion. Pratyaksha 
(Suttunarvu) is defined ‘ they say Suttunarvu is Pratya- 
ksha, and leave out of consideration Nama, Jsti, Guna aTid 
Kriya, name, class, quality, and action as these could be 
included in Anumana.’ Dignaga defined it in his 
Prammm Samucc/iaya, as that which is free from illusory 
experience, and unconnected with name, genus, etc. ^ 
xAnumana is said in the work to be of three Icinds : 
Karana, Karya and Samanya^ following the other schools 
of Hindu thought. It is also described as liable to error. 
But one of these Karya anumana is stated to be unerr- 
ing. So far the Manimekhalai. Dignaga regards 
Anumana as of two kinds : (i) Svartha, for one’s own 
knowledge ; (2) Parartha, for the purpose of convincing 
others.^ Dignaga comes round, after an analysis, to the 
opinion that the second is really included in the first as 
there could be no effort at convincing others without being 
convinced oneself. Manimekhalai deals with only the 
first part, convincing oneself, without any reference what- 
soever to the second. According to Dignaga, Anumana 
is defined as ‘ the understanding of the meaning by a 
reason ’ almost exactly the kUrya-anumana of the Mani- 
mekhalai : Pratyaksham Kalpanapodam, Anumanam 
lingat Arthadarsanam.^ The Manimekhalai states gene- 
rally that the other pramanas^ obviously those referred to 
as six at the end of Pranmnavada of book xxvii, are 
capable of inclusion in Anumana. ‘ All the remaining 
pramWiias being capable of inclusion in Anumanajxi'a.y be 
regarded as such. ’ Dignaga on the contrary consid^s 

^ Book xxvii. 11. 83-85. 

Real perceptjpn, inference, authority, analogy, presumption and absence,- 
these and these alone are the pramanas now current. For real the term 
used is ‘ mey * — true, that is, free from error — * Kalpanapodam.* 

* Pram. Sam. 

® Nyaya PraveSa. 




two other pranianas only, namely, Upamana and Subda, 
of the four pramanas according to the logicians, particu- 
larly, Vatsyayana, and rejects both as not valid treating 
each separately. This means that Dignaga is criticizing 
Vatsyayana, while the Maiiimekhalai belongs to a period 
when Vatsyayana’s teaching had not come into vogue. 

Then the other instruments of knowledge, according 
to the* Manimekhalai, are Paksha, Hetu, Drishtanta, 
Upmaya and Nigatrmna. The work proceeds to define 
each and illustrates it by examples. These are obviously 
the five limbs (avayava) of a syllogism as accepted by 
the Naiyayikas of the Brahmanical systems. The five 
names according to them are Pratigiia, Hetu, Udaharana, 
Upanaya, Nigamana. It will be seen that only the names 
of one and three differ from the Manimekhalai recital, in 
the sense of using different words, synonymous though 
they are. After dealing with the first three elaborately, 
defining and illustrating, the Manimekhalai comes to the 
conclusion that the connected Upanaya and Nigamana 
may both be included in Drishtanta, and as such, are not 
considered separately. Then the work proceeds to 
consider the good and the bad applications of the three 
Paksha, Hetu, and Drishtanta. 

Dignaga, on the contrary, starts with the statement 
‘ demonstration and refutation together with their fallacies 
are useful in arguing with others, and perception and 
inference together with their fallacies are useful for self- 
understpding. Seeing these I compiled the Sastra’ 
(Ifxtroduction to the Nyayapravesa). He proceeds 
to state clearly that Paksha, HMu and Drishtanta are the 
three limbs of a syllogism, and it is by means of these 
that knowledge is imparted clearly to a questioner who 
does not understand it already, and enforces the position 
by the folio-wing statement ; ‘That these three are there- 


fore generally spoken of as the three limbs of a syllogism.’ 
Nyayapravesa is quoted in a very recently published 
work Tatvasangraha in the Gaikwad’s Oriental Series. 
It is worth observing in regard to this that the Manime- 
khalai considers the five limbs and states that the last 
two can be included in the third, while the Nyayapravesa 
apparently does not find it necessary to consider the last 
two at all. The current opinion is that Digna^a was 
the logician who reduced the five-limbed syllogism of 
Gautama and Vatsyayana to one of three limbs only, thus 
giving it the form of an Aristotelian syllogism. ‘ The 
most important service Dignaga did was by reducing the 
five members of a syllogism as propounded by Akshapada 
and Vatsyayana to three, thereby giving it a form more 
similar to the Aristotelian Syllogism of three members.’ * 
He is also believed to be the first author to have proved the 
invalidity of U pamSna’a.ndi Ssbdazs, ^xools, while the Mani- 
mekhalai merely states that the two may be included in the 
third without in any way asserting their invalidity. This 
point of difference between the two should also be noted. 

A pakska is valid when it contains a minor term 
explicitly stated and a major term also similarly stated, 
and a statement that the predicate will actually differ in 
other application, as for example, the statement that 
sound is non-eternal. In this the dharma or predicate is 
either eternal or non-eternal. The hetu or linga or 
sadhana is the connecting term, the middle term of 
modern logic, which appears in three forms ; either it is 
attributed to the subject, or it is ascribed to an example 
by analogy, or it is denied to the contrary. Sapakska or 
homogeneous statement is that which is contained in a 
general statement giving to another subject a predicate 

■ Tattvasangraha, voL i. Intr^d., pp. lxxiii-lxx:*fv. 


incompatible with the predicate of the opponent, as when 
a Bauddha tells a tjankhya that sound is destructible not 
knowing that he is a believer in the non-destructibility 
of sound. (7) Aprasiddha-viseshya is where the subject 
or the minor term is unfamiliar to the opponent as when 
a Sankhya addressing a Bauddha states that the soul is 
capable of animation, the Bauddha being one who does 
not be’lieve in the existence of a soul, the state- 
ment proves to be incompatible with his own convic- 
tion. (8) Aprasiddha-ubhaya consists in both the 
minor term and the major term being incompatible as 
when a Vaiseshika addressing a Bauddha asserts that 
for happiness and all that is associated with it, the 
cause is the soul ; — the Bauddha not believing in 
soul, nor accepting any connection with it of happi- 
ness, neither of them is compatible with his position. 
Lastly (9) Aprasiddha sambandham consists in the 
assertion of what is the actual conviction of the opponent 
as when to a Bauddha it is put that sound is non- 
eternal, the Bauddha believing that it is non-eternal, 
it is superfluous to prove it to him. 

Sattan similarly takes up the fallacious hUu or the 
fallacious middle term, and states that they are of three 
kinds: (i) Asiddham or unproved, (2) Anaikantikam 
or uncertain, (3) Viruddham or contradictory. Then he 

shows that the first is of four kinds: (i) UbhaySsiddham, 

(2) Anyathosiddham, (3) Siddhusiddham and (4) A'srayS- 
sMam. Similarly, the second is of six kinds : (i) 
Sc^Em7}am,yd) Asadaranam, (3) Sapafikaikade'saviruddha- 
Vtpakkavyapt, (4) Vipakkaikade'saviruddha-Sapakkavyapi, 

( 5 ) Idpatyikadesaviruddhi, and (6) Viruddha-Vyabhichari. 

/ ' is similarly of four kinds: 

(ij Where in the statement of the or d/mrmm, 

the major term is contradictory to the S^d/ia^a or the 



middle term, (2) where the Dharmavisesha or the 
attribute or the predicate implied in the major term is 
contradictory to the middle term Sadhmm, (3) where the 
form of the minor term is contradictory to the Sadkana 
or the middle term, and (4) when the predicate implied 
in the minor term is contradictory to the Sadkana or the 
middle term. These are similarly illustrated as in the 
u. others. * 

Then he passes on to th^ fallacious example, Drish- 
tanta abhasa. He divides the Drishtanta into two : — 

(i) homogeneous, and (2) heterogeneous. Of these the 
former falls into five parts : — 

(1) Sadhanadharmavikalam or imperfect middle. 

(2) Sadhyadharmavikalam or defective major term. 

(3) Ubhayadharmavikalam or defective major and 

^ middle. 

(4) Ananvayam or non-concomitance and 

(5) Viparita-anvayam or contrary concomitance. 

The latter or heterogeneous example is similarly of 

five kinds ; — 

(1) Sadhya-avyavrtti (not heterogeneous from the 
opposite of major term). 

(2) Sadhana-avyavrtti (not heterogeneous from the 
opposite of middle term). 

^ (3) Ubhaya-avyavrtti (heterogeneous from neither 

> the opposite of the middle term nor the opposite of the 

major term). 

(4) Avyatireka (a heterogeneous example Rowing 
the absence of disconnection between the middle te^ 
and the major term). 

(5) Viparltavyatireka (a heterogeneous example 
showing the absence of an inverse disconnection 
between the middle term and the major term). 

These again are fully explained and illustrated, the 



definitions and illustrations alike being almost identifi- 
able with what is given in the Nyayapravesa of 

Having thus explained the whole position, the author 
concluded ‘ in the manner expounded above, understand 
clearly the fallacious character of the inference that is 
produced by the fallacious character of the reasoning. 
Thus ‘distinguishing truth and falsehood by the method 
taught above, understand ^without doubt and on due 
consideration what is truth.' This seems on the face of 
it, merely to be an exhortation to the pupil to understand 
the truth, and thus must be held to invalidate the infer- 
ence that, since the exposition has taken the form of 
syllogistic argument, it is intended to carry conviction 
to others rather than to convince oneself. The fact of 
an argument being thrown into a syllogistic form need 
not necessarily involve the obligation that the argument 
is intended to convince others. It may be thrown into 
that syllogistic form for convincing oneself, irrespective 
of any consideration to argue and convince others. The 
discussion of syllogism and syllogistic form notwith- 
standing, the explicit statement of the author seems to 
imply that he was primarily concerned that each indivi- 
dual must so examine the arguments to convince him- 
selt. As such, the chapter seems to involve no more 
than the Svartha form of inference of Dign^a, and 
has_ nothing whatever to do with the Parartha form 
inference that Dignaga for some reason had to 
consider and conclude that it is already involved in the 

Taking a complete view of the chapter in comparison 
with such knowledge as we have of the works of 
Dignaga on logic, it seems clearly arguable that the 
uddhist saint Arvana Adigal who taught in the Tamil 



country and in Kanchl in the latter days of his life, 
taught the logic that ultimately found its most illustrious 
exponent in Dignaga. It may be possible to argue that 
Aravana Adigal in chapter xxix of the Manimekhalai is 
merely expounding the logic taught by Dignaga and 
therefore followed him in point of time. If we had no 
valid reason against this, the chapter is certainly open 
to that inference, although, as I have pointed out above, 
there are points in it which would seem clearly a 
transition from the school of Akshapada (and Vatsya- 
yana) to that of Dignaga, and apart from the valid 
evidence going against this inference, there is enough 
in the system of logic expounded in chapter xxix to 
justify the inference that Dignaga belonged to this 
school, and ultimately codified the teaching in the form 
in which he has given it out to the world. 

It must be remembered that Dignaga was a native of 
KanchT. Even if he was not born there he lived there 
for a considerable length of time in the early stages of 
his life. He went afterwards to northern India to learn 
from Vasubandhu who was long resident in Ayodhya. 
Dignaga is actually said to have gone there in the 
Tibetan sources of his life, but we are not told what 
exactly he learnt from Vasubandhu. It is not likely 
that he went to Vasubandhu to learn logic. From 
Vasubandhu he learnt perhaps the Yogachara Philosophy 
of Buddhism to which there is no reference in chapter 
XXX of Manimekhalai. He went from Vasubandhu to 
Nalanda, and therefrom he proceeded on a controversial 
tour and ultimately went to Kanchi to settle down as a 
teacher there though according to one account he died 
in Orissa. "C^asubandhu’s time must now be taken to be 
contemporary with the reign of Samudragupta and 
Chandragupta, his son, and Dignaga could .not be far 




reiBOved from him. A.D. 400 would be the ultimate 
downward limit for him, and the school of logic in 
Kanchl representing the teachings of Arvana Adigal in 
the poem must have had anterior existence. ' Other 
considerations of a historical character, and even the 
cultural details contained in the Brahmanical sections of 
the book, seem to indicate a period considerably ante- 
rior te Dignaga as the period of the work. Hence the 
conclusion seems borne in upon us that the Manime- 
khalai represents a school Cf logic from which Dignaga 
sprang, not a school of logic which expounded 
Dignaga’ s teaching. 

Book XXX of the Manimekhalai takes the form 
of the teaching of the essentials of Buddhism such 
as it was understood to be by the author Sattan, 
or such as was prevalent in the Tamil country at 
the time. It begins with laying down, as a necessary 
preparation for it, that one should be prepared to 
make gifts Deely to worthy people and adopt a 
conduct of righteousness in life, thus exhibiting in 
practice the two qualities of Dhana and Sila, the first 
two of the ten Buddhist perfections (Paramitas). Then 
the noviciate should put himself unreservedly under the 
direction of the three jewels by a frank declaration of 
such resignation into dependence upon the three jewels 
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Thus Aravana Adigaj 
began his teaching with how the Buddha 'came into the 
world and how he attained to enlightenment, and begins 
to_expohnd the discovery that he made of the ‘ Four 
Truths,’ suffering, origin of suffering, cessation of 
suffering, and the way to bring about cessation of 
suffering, a truth which according to this ‘teacher had 
been taught by a succession of venerable Buddhas before. 
Ihe realization of these^ ‘ Four Truths ’ could only be 



achieved by overcoming the chain of causes and condi- 
tions incorporated in the twelve nidanas. These twelve 
are so related to each other as cause and effect that the 
cessation of the one necessarily brings about the cessation 
of the 'following. We are told that these may be 
regarded in the relation of subjects and of attributes as 
the attributes could not exist if the subjects themselves 
cease to exist. These nidanas are then expounded fully, 
and each one of these is actually explained in the way 
both the Northern and the Southern schools of Buddhism 
actually do. The exposition seems actually to follow 
closely that of the Sarvastivadins and the Sautrantikas. 
Ignorance is explained as the chief cause of it all. It 
consists in a want of capacity in oneself to perceive truth, 
and in the capacity for deluding oneself in believing that 
which could not be perceived, on the authority of others. 
The ultimate result of this leads to a cycle of births in 
the six different worlds of beings, of which the first three 
are respectively, Deva, Brahma, and the human ; the 
next three, animal life, the spirit world and the nether 
world itself. Good deeds take one to birth in the first 
three, and evil deeds to that in the following three. 
Removal of ignorance therefore would remove all else as 
of consequence. These twelve nidanas are divided into 
four sections with three joints as in the Sarvastivadin 
Karma phenomenology. These again are divided into 
past, present and future. ‘ Desire, attachment and 
ignorance, these and the birth resulting therefrom, 
constitute action in the present and cause future birth. 
Consciousness, name and form, organs of sense, contact, 
sensation, birth, age, disease and death, these are conse- 
quential experiences in life, both present and future. 
These are full of evil, of deeds, and of consequences 
resulting from these deeds, and,thus constitute suffering.’ 

11 • 



As such these are regarded as impermanent, coming thus 
to the first cardinal statement of Buddha’s teaching, 
Everything is ^ impermanent ‘ sarvmn anityam \ 
Results from this suffering are said to be becoming 
when one understands that there is nothing like a soul in 
anything existing. ^ This brings us to the second cardinal 
principle of Buddhism, < Everything is without a soul ’ 

' sarvam anatmakam ‘ Consciousnes, name and form' 
the organs of sense, contact, sensation, birth, disease’ 
age and death, with the re'lulting anxiety and helpless- 
ness, these constitute disease and suffering. The causes 
of these are ignorance, action, desire, attachment and 
the collection of deeds.’ It is this attachment that 
brings about suffering and death. If this attachment 
should be given up, it brings about cessation of birth 
and bhss ‘ Nirvanam alone is blissful peace’, Nirvnna- 
mevasantam . Thus are expounded the ‘ Four Truths ’. 

One statement in the course of this deserves closer 

that in anything existent, 
there IS nothing like a soul. It is as a general state- 
ment the same as ^ sarvam anatmakam', but somewhat 
narrower in its application as it is actually stated 
m this context as well as in a passage following 
near the end of the chapter.^ Here the statement 
amtmakam seems to imply the negation of in- 
ividual souls in things existing, and not in its further 
development of a common soul which is believed to be 
a refanement mtroduced by Harivarma (a.d. dr I) 

stSddbfsroi:' the founder 

, “f theological method 

and then an exposition of the five s^;c^ka,. The 

^ ’ Ih 177-254, 



skandhas and their manifestations, it is taught, are 
caused by desire, anger and illusion, and could be got 
rid of by getting rid of these three. Each one of these 
is to be examined separately, its real nature under- 
stood and adhesion to it got rid of. An examination 
would thus show that everything is impermanent, full of 
suffering, without a soul and unclean. By so under- 
standing it, desire must be given up. The best attitude 
of mind is attained in the ^alization of friendliness to 
all living beings, kindliness to creatures, and joy at the 
well-being of all, and these must therefore be cultivated. 
Illusion is got rid of by hearing ‘ Sruti ' ; by mentation, 
Cketaiza] experiencing in mind — Bhavana', realizing in 
vision — Dar'smia. By practising these steadily one can 
get rid of darkness of mind. Manimekhalai is then said 
to have agreed to doing so and set up as an ascetic 
iapasi, which put her on the highroad to NirvUna. 

In this chapter, Aravana Adigal follows the main 
lines of karma phenomenology as taught in the school of 
the Sarvastivadins and what South Indian Tamil i a ns 
describe as the teaching of the school of the Sautran- 
tikas. There is no hint of any element of the teaching 
of the school of the Vignanavadin in it of which 
Dignaga was a shining exponent and even other teachers 
from Kanchi down to the days of Dharmapala wire 
distinctly exponents of that school. As was pointed out 
already, there is nothing that could be regarded as a 
reference to the Sunyavada and the Madhyamika 
school ; nor even of the characteristic teachings of the 
Satyasiddhi school, a transition as it were between the 
Hinayana and the Mahayana in the doctrine of anEtma 
that is actually referred to here. This again seems to 
give us a clear indication that the time of Aravana 
Adigal, or the author Sattan, cduld not be re^ferred to a 



time when the most distinguished teacher in Kanchi 
was a shining light of the Vignanavada school. It must, 
however, be noted here that, according to Hiuen-Tsang, 
the prevalant form of Buddhism in Kanchi was the 

There is yet another school associated intimately with 
Kanchi to which reference may be made here. The 
Chinese know of a school of Buddhism called the Dhyana 
School which seems to have had a continuous existence 
in China since the days of its introduction in the sixth 
century to the present time. This is called in Japanese 
Yen-shu. This was introduced into China by an Indian 
priest called Bodhidharma. ‘ He was the third son of 
a king of Kanchi in South India. He came to China in 
A.D. 527.’ ‘ This school does not cling for support to 

any particular portion of the Trpitaka, but rather takes 
up whatever is excellent in the various portions of the 
sacred canon, not without subjecting it to a critical 
examination. The Dhyana school moreover believes 
that the human tongue is too weak to give expression to 
the highest truths. As a natural consequence of such a 
belief, its adherents disclaim attachment to Sacred 
Books as their final authority. But nevertheless they 
respect the canon regarding it as an efficient instrument 
conducing to the attainment of enlightenment.’ There 
is no indication of anything like this teaching in the 
Buddhism of Mapimekhalai. If Bodhidharma went to 
China in A.D. 527, his teaching must have been fairly 
wSl known about A.D. 500. Perhaps this may give a 
slight indication that the teaching of Aravapa Adigal 
rnusthave been earlier than A.D. 500. 

It may be stated in conclusion that the teaching of 
Buddhism as embodied in Book xxx is enforced by 
Sattanat least in three dther planes in the course of the 



work. He puts it once in the mouth of Aravana Adigal 
himself in Book xxiv where he taught it to the queen ; 
he puts it into the mouth of the spirit of ‘ the statue in 
the pillar ’ in Book xxi, and he puts it again into the 
mouth of the image of Kannaki addressing Mapimekhalai 
as on the previous occasion. In all this it is the same 
teaching that is given detail for detail. That the teaching 
followed was that of the Sautrantika is in clear evidence 
where Kannaki is made to tell Manimekhalai, ‘ having 
learnt in this old city the” wise teaching of those that 
profess the various religions, and after feeling convinced 
that they do not expound the path of truth, you will then 
accept “ the path of the Pitakas of the Great One ”, and 
follow it without transgression.’ This makes it as clear 
as it is possible to expect in the circumstances, that the 
teaching of Buddhism embodied in the Manimekhalai is 
the Sautrantika form of Buddhism, and by no means the 
Vighanavada with which the names of Dignaga and the 
succession of his pupils down to Dharmapala are 
intimately associated. 



The foregoing account of Books xxvii, xxix and xxx 
of the Manimekhalai follows faithfully the text of the 
work, but the exposition of it is entirely my own. » It 
would have become obvious to the reader who has 
perused the, whole of it with any care, that perhaps other 
views than those expounded above can possibly be urged 
and other conclusions drawn with very considerable 
justification. It may be as weU that those oiher lines are 


considered and my reasons for taking the line that I have 
taken indicated as a necessary supplement to my exposi- 
tion of the subject. In regard to this part of the subject, 
I have had the great advantage of discussion with a 
scholar of the eminence of Professor Jacobi of Bonn who 
did me the kindness to look through the manuscript 
portion relating to the translation of these books and the 
whole of my exposition thereof. As his criticism is quite 
typical of the views possible, I set them forth, as far as 
may be, in his own words, ^ith a running commentary 

of my own as perhaps the best way of explaining the 

The first point to call for attention relates to the 
remarks^ of the learned Professor regarding Krtahoti. 
Krtakoti, it will be remembered, is a name which occurs 
m^the Manimekhalai along with those of Vedavyasa and 
Jaimini among those who were regarded as authoritative 
expounders of Vaidika Pramanas (instruments of know- 
ledge resting upon the Veda for their authority). Profes- 
sor Jacobi writes in his letter dated the 28th April 1927 

explanation of Krtakoti as the name ot the first 
commentary on the Mimarhsa Sutras is of great importance. 
The vexed question about Bodhayana and Upavarsha is 
brought nearer its solution by your discovery. In connec- 
tion with it I may be allowed to make the following remarks ; 

(1) The Vrttikara cannot be equated with Krtakoti 
if the report of the Manimekhalai may be trusted. For Krta- 
koti taught eight pramavos, and the Vrttikara but six • see 
quotation from him ad. I, 1, 5 (p. 10, Bibli. 

, n-!! “ connection with the i>rams.nas cannot 

be Badarayana, since no school of the Vedantins is known to 
have admitted ten pramsms, but some acknowledged three 
some six. (In the Sutras of either Mlmaihsa occur only the 
hree original t>ran.a^, as acknowledged by Sankhya In 
the Vedanta Sutras mfihapatti does not occur, ■ in the 



Mimamsa Sutra ; it does occur twice or thrice but the word 
there denotes something quite different, in no way connected 
with the prsmarui artkspaiit). Perhaps Vedavyasa should 
be taken to be the author of the Puranas, though the Paura- 
nikas acknowledge eight pra?nSnas according to the usual 

We shall consider the points in this extract seriatim. 
Krtakoti is the name of a person according to the 
Manimekhalai. But what is said of Krtakoti in the 
Prapanchahr daya passage quoted in extenso shows Krtakoti 
to be the name of the commentary from which the author 
must have been subsequently named Krtakdti. The very 
formation of the word seems to indicate it as a personal 
title, though, according to our authority, it is unmistaka- 
bly the name of the work. The Prapanchahrdaya passage 
quoted makes it clear beyond all possibility of doubt 
that Krtakoti is the author of the commentary as a whole, 
and Upavarsha was the expounder of that commentary 
who, for convenience of teaching and reading, felt it 
necessary to make an abridged edition of it. That is the 
position according to this Sanskrit work. But the point 
to which the professor takes exception is whether Krtakoti 
can be identified with the Vrttikara as I have taken it in 
my exposition. The commentators quote largely a 
commentary as the work of a Vrttikara. They do not^ in 
the great majority of cases, give any other name than that 
of Vrttikara. But the Prapanchahrdaya clearly states 
that it was Bodhayana that wrote the commentary 
Krtakoti, and that Upavarsha’s work was no more th ^ n 
an abridgement. So where it is quoted as distinct from 
Upavarsha, sometimes in juxtaposition, the possibility 
seems to be that Bodhayana is quoted under the name 
Vrttikara as the Sri Bhashya of Ramanuja refers to 
Bodhayana Vrtti as an authoritative work ‘following the 



text of which closely he writes his own commentary on the 
Brahma Sutras ’ or Uttara Mimamsa. The Prapanchahr- 
daya makes the statement clear that Bodhayana wrote the 
commentary on the whole of the Mimamsa, Purva and 
Uttara, and Upavarsha’s abridgment similarly takes 
into it both the sections of the Mimarhsa. But Professor 
Jacobi’s point of objection is that the Vrttikara formulat- 
ed €1^^. pramaims according to the Manimekhalai. If 
Krtakoti should be taken to be the Vrttikara, the eight 
are nowhere mentioned in Vedanta works as 
formulated by him. He takes the six pramUims clearly 
stated in the^ commentary on Sutra I. i. 5 of the Purva 
Mimarhsa in Sahara s commentary to be a quotation from 
the Vrttikara. My point against this is that the position 
seems to be supported indirectly by what Professor Keith 
has to say of the quotation from the Vrttikara in this 
commentary, that the six are the pramanas accepted by 
the cornmentator as the pramanas of the Sutrakara, that 
is Jaimini. As against this, the Professor points out in 
a later letter dated the 12th July, 1927. 

‘ You say that the six, mentioned first in the 
extract from the old Vrttikara, were those formulated by 
Jaimim, the Sutrakara himself. But by the evidence of the 
Sutras their author knew only the first three pramanas and 
»no more.’ 

I must admit I had overlooked this point. But then 
the point admits of an explanation. In that particular 
chapter^ Jaimini is apparently considering the pramanas 
gaierally admitted as such by other Sastrakaras, it may 
be the Naiyayikas and others, and of these, for the 
purposes of the Mimamsa Sastra, the first part of it in 
particular, he rejects^ the first three as of no* validity and 
^cepts the fourth, Sabda alone, as of valid authority. 
That po&5teon of the Sikrakara does not appear to me to 



be necessarily inconsistent with Jaimini’s regarding six 
as valid pramE^ms generally from the point of view of 
the systems of the followers of the Veda as a whole. 
This is confirmed by the Prapanchahrdaya which treats 
these six as laukika (secular). With such a clear state- 
ment as is found in the Manimekhalai any other explana- 
tion would make the author absurd, and I believe it would 
be carrying criticism too far to ascribe to an author an 
absurdity of this gross kind. 

In regard to Vedavyasa nimself, the Professor’s point 
is that no Vedanta work has accepted ten as 
such. But that is not incompatible with Vedavyasa 
having formulated ten pramattas. 

In the section under consideration, the Manimekhalai 
deals with the Vaidika/)?'«w^»«^ as such, not those of the 
Miraamsa Sastra alone. Among those who dealt with 
the subject of pramanas generally the work mentions 
three, Vedavyasa formulating ten pramU'tms as valid, 
Krtakoti eight and Jaimini six. The formulating of 
these as generally acceptable, is not incompatible with 
the position that where particular sciences or Sastras are 
taken into consideration, these get reduced, for the 
purposes of the particular Sastra, to a smaller number. 
That seems the only satisfactory way of accounting for 
the varying numbers of the pramajias that we find in^'the 
different Sastras. But in regard to Vyasa himself, the 
Professor is of opinion that probably he was not Vyasa 
Badarayana, the author of the Brahma Sutras. , Indian 
tradition seems to be uniform in regarding Vedavyasa'^as 
actually the author of the Brahma Sutras. No treatise 
of his on pramanas has come down to us, but Veda- 
vyasa is regarded as a teacher, and it is just possible to 
believe he taught, as a necessary preliminary V aidika 
pramE^s z?, s,ViCh., and in the “course of that teaching 




formulated ten pramaims. This position seems to find 
confirmation in^the passage quoted from the commentary 
Kasika on the Slokavarttika where the names of Krtakoti 
and Vedavyasa are brought into connection. Vedavyasa 
is there indicated by the name Parasarya, son of Para- 
sara, and Krtakoti is there referred to as one that followed 
him in point of time and as one that followed him in 
point of teaching as well, so that Krtakoti was one that 
followed the teaching of Parasarya Vyasa coming later 
m point of time. It seems therefore understandable that, 
on the general question of the pramajms, Parasarya 
Vyasa the teacher held ten such as acceptable, while the 
comparatively late disciple elected to accept only eight 
of his^ teacher’s, just as Jaimini, traditionally the pupil 
of Vyasa, is said similarly to have accepted only six. 
The whole position is merely one of classification.' 
Vyhile it is possible for one to regard some of these as 
distinct enough for separate treatment, others may 
legitimately hold that they are easily capable of inclusion 
in some of those already considered. 

It seems likely there is manuscript warrant for 
the confusion in the printed texts of the commentary 
of Sahara on the Purva Mimarnsa. The Panini trans- 
lator^in his comment on Sutra I, i, 5 of the Purva 
Mimarnsa translates only six prammms as those of the 
commentator. In his analysis of the first pada of 
the work that he prefixes to the translation, he recounts 
eight pramanas without indicating where exactly he 
obtained the information from.^ Is it not possible 
then that this list^ of eight is the eight of the Vrttikara 
as quoted by Sahara, and therefore the eight of 

^ A letter of mine asking for the source of 
eight Pramanas, fetched the reply, to my 
translator died on 10th June, 192 F, 

this information regarding the 
great regret, that the learned 



Krtakoti as we find it stated in the Manimekhalai ? 
That there is some little confusion would become clear 
from the following extracts from Professor Keith’s 
Karma Mimosa. On page 8, he has ; — ‘ The extract 
from the Vrttikara proves that an important addition has 
been made to the teaching of the Mimarhsa in the shape 
of the introduction of the discussion of the validity of 
knowledge and its diverse forms.’ Further down he has 
‘it is not illegitimate to assume that the Vrttikara 
indulged also in metaphysical discussions If the Vrtti- 
kara held eight pramanas as valid and is quoted as such 
in commentaries, and if the Manimekhalai said Bodha- 
yana Krtakoti formulated eight pyamanas as such, is 
there not justification for regarding the two as the same 
person? The point that the Sutras actually discuss only 
four pramUtuts does not materially affect the question as 
these pramEnas are pramatias of validity for the purpose 
of Mimarhsa Sastra particularly, while the eight may be 
held as generally acceptable. The four considered in the 
Sutras may be the four generally taken to be those 
accepted by the Naiyayikas. That Vedantins discuss 
only the three pramEnas of the Sankya would mean no 
more than that the preoccupation of the Vedanta writers 
is to consider or controvert the Sankya, at any rate, to 
consider it as perhaps the most influential system obtain- 
ing at the time. Coming to the point that the Vedavyasa 
referred to in the Manimekhalai may be the Pauranika 
Vyasa, I do not know if there is sufficient jusjtification 
for distinguishing so many Vyasas. But it is ^ust 
possible that the PaurEnikamata follows the teaching of 
Krtakdti, \yho, after all, is described as a follower of 
Vyasa in point of conviction. In the work Sarva 
Siddhanta Sangraha ascribed to Sankaracharya there is 
a Vyasa Siddhanta discussed, but it seems to be a 



Siddhanta incorporating the teaching of the Mahabharata 
as such. This work, Sarva Siddhanta Sangraha may be 
the work of the great Sankara or no. But it apparently 
was a work considered of some importance and standing 
as the Vaishnava Acharya Pillai Lokacharya seems to 
have considered it as a work of some authority. In any 
case, there seems to be no room for a decisive negation 
to the statement in the Manimekhalai that Vyasa in 
his treatment of the Vaidika pramUnas accepted ten 
prammias as of general valic^ty. 

While, therefore, we may not be in a position to 
support by a decisive authority categorically stated of the 
position indicated in the Manimekhalai, there seems to 
be quite enough of circumstantial evidence to support 
the general position of the Manimekhalai that Vaidika 
pramanas as such received treatment at the hands of 
three mharyas of high rank, Vyasa, Krtakdti, and 
Jaimini, the prrnnmtas upheld by the three being 

respectively, ten, eight and six. It further turns out 
that Krtakoti was a follower of Vyasa in point of 
teaching, which may mean that he was a teacher of the 
system formulated by Vyasa, and this invloves his 
exposition of Vyasa’s teaching, which took the form of a 
commentary, such as the Prapanchahrdaya actually 
indicates it to be, the work Krtakoti' of an author 
Bodhayana. Where Ramanuja speaks of his following 
the text of Bodhayana’ s vrtti in his Sri Bhashya, the 
ground for identifying Bodhayana with Krtakoti does 
no? seem to be quite without support. 

The next point of the professor’s criticism is the 
rektive position of Dignaga and the author pf the Mani- 
mekhalai, as their teaching of Buddhistic logic is almost 
identical in point of form. Since the good professor has 
given me fulf permission to extract from his letters, I shall 



take the liberty of expounding his position by quoting 
his own words : — 

‘ I now understand what yon meant by saying that in the 
Manimekhalai the logical teaching of Dignaga is anticipated. 
According to your opinion, there was in South India a school 
of Logicians headed by Aravana Adigal where Dignaga 
learned the system of Logic which later in North hidia he 
proclaimed as his own. This is a bold assumption which 
would require very strong arguments to pass as admissible. 
A prima facie objection, c^f which you seem not to be un- 
conscious, is the following : — The Manimekhaiai is a romance 
the scheme of which is laid in the remote past. The events 
narrated in it are a fiction of the poet (or his predecessors), 
and so are the persons figuring in it. Why should Aravaria 
Adigal be an exception ? Is he, or his school, well attested 
by Tamil tradition in the Sangam Literature ? In many 
Jaina romances there is introduced some Yati who gives an 
exposition of the law, converts the hero, etc., etc., but no- 
body has taken these teachers for historical persons. They 
serve the purpose of the poet to give a sketch of the Jain 
doctrines, or as the case may be to refute heterodox ones. 
Similarly Sattan introduced Aravana Adigal as the exponent 
of what he himself considered to be the essence of Buddhism. 
As he is no Sastrin, no professor of Philosophy, but a poet 
and grain merchant, he naturally had to gather information 
from different sources. This accounts for the occasional 
inconsistencies in his ^ report,' e.g. ‘ when first five Avayavas 
are taught (in accordance with Aksapada and Vasubagdhu) 
and afterwards the two last Avayavas are included in dritunta 
so that only three remain (as taught by Dignaga) ; or when 
ill chapter xxvii the Bauddha system is reckoned among 
the six systems which are based on the six prammias^ and in 
chapter xxix Buddha is said to have admitted hnt^two 
pramdnas, ’ 

In the Pfissage the first point that emerges is the 
character of the work Manimekhaiai. Manimekhaiai is un- 
doubtedly a romantic poem. But I have taken pains to 
show that it is a romance based«on historical*occurrences. 



It at least seems to have been the traditional opinion of 
the commentators that, while the treatment of the subject 
in the work is of the character of a romance, the incidents 
narrated in it are of the character of historical incidejits. 
This is, to some extent, supported by the fact that the 
author, who is described undoubtedly as the grain 
merchant of Madura, was a contemporary of the Chera 
king, ‘ Senguttuvan’, in whose court he was a much 
respected figure. He was ^the particular friend of the 
Chera king’s younger brother, Ilango, the author of 
Silappadhikaram, who more than once, in the body of the 

work, refers to Sattan as a friend of his brother, the 


monarch. Senguttuvan is a character whose deeds are 
found described in works, whose character as Sangam 
works is beyond cavil. The achievements of this monarch 
are described in identical terms almost, in these two 
romantic works as well as in a more or less definitely 
historical poem, the Padirruppattu, by Paranar, a Sangam 
classic by common consent. Whatever opinion we may 
form of the works themselves, their character must be 
governed by this consideration that Sattan and Sengut- 
tuvan were contemporaries. 

The next point is, whether Aravaria Adigal, the author, 
gives an exposition of Buddhism and Buddhistic logic 
in this work exactly in the style of the Jain authors 
referred to, the Jain celebrities described in the work 
Prabhavakacharita. The Professor is undoubtedly right 
in saying that Sattan was first and foremost a poet 
an3 not perhaps a philosopher or Sastrin. But if the 
tradition of the Tamil Land could be believed much 
true philosophic influence has been inspired«to professed 
teachers and founders of systems from sources far less 
reputable than that of the grain merchant Sattan. I have 
nowhere stated that ther€ was a particular school of logi- 



cians, or that Aravaiia Adigal was the head of a particular 
school. All that I meant was there must have been 
teachers of logic teaching at various centres in the Tamil 
country. Aravana Adigal was typical of those teachers 
and as was usual with these teachers he spent a wander- 
ing life here, there, and everywhere, at any rate, in the 
Tamil country. In the last stage of his life, he was 
teaching in KanchT, as he did in a previous stage at 
Kaveripattinam. He may have anticipated the teaching 
of Dignaga in the enunciation of two fram'atms^ namely 
that the pramanas definitely applicable to the teachings 
of Buddhism are only two, and that the Avayavas (mem- 
bers of a syllogism) need be only three. My position 
that Aravana Adigal anticipates Dignaga is taken on 
these two points that at the end of the discussion of 
Vaidika pra}-nanas in Book xxvii, he definitely states that 
six are the current pramanas applicable to the six re- 
cognized systems of the time, and according to him one 
of the six recognized systems was Buddhism. At the 
commencement of Book xxix where he treats of Buddhist 
logic, he treats of the Pramanas, Pratyaksha and 
Anumana, and winds up with the statement that the 
other pramunas are capable of inclusion in the second, 
i.e., Anumana. In the Nyayapravesa and the Pramana- 
salnuucchaya of Dignaga, Dignaga solemnly discusses* the 
four pramaims of the logicians rejecting the last two and 
accepting the first two. To me it appears that Aravana 
Adigal’ s position marks a transition to what uMmately 
became Dignaga’ s teaching. If a man of the reputatfon 
of Aravana Adigal as a teacher taught the system in 
Kanchi, one may take it that serious students at Kanchi 
had some knowledge of it, and when one of them of the 
genius of Dignaga systematized the teaching of 
Buddhist logic, he might hav» improved tipon it by 



making a deliberate investigation of the whole position in- 
cluding that of the most authoritative school of the time, 
that of the Naiyayikas, and laid it down that two are the 
pramUnas and not four, while Aravana Adigal merely says 
that there are other pramanas, but they need not be con- 
sidered separately, as all of them could be included in 
the second, the all of them here being apparently, the 
remaining four out of the six. It does not affect our 
position even if Aravana Adigal were a mere creation of 
the poet, as it would then be that Sattan incorporates in 
the Manimekhalai what was the prevalent notion among 
Buddhists at Kanchi, or what is perhaps better, in the 
Tamil country. In regard to the avayavas the same 
transition is indicated almost in the same manner, that 
is, he discusses the three and leaves the other two as 
capable of inclusion in the third. That is the reason 
why I regard it as a transition from the current beliefs 
of anterior times to the teachings of Dignaga. 

The professor follows up his criticism with further 

‘ Though it will probably ever be impossible to ascertain 
all sources from which Sattan drew his information which he 
embodied in theoretical chapters of the Mapimekhalai, 
but still it can be done in one case beyond the possibility 
of doubt. Indeed on a comparison of the exposition of 
the fallacies of the Manimekhalai with the corresponding 
part in the Nyayapravesa it will be seen that the number 
and order of the fallacies, and as you yourself state, “ their 
defirytions and illustrations alike are almost identical ”. 
Now the material agreement of two texts amounting 
practically to identity cannot be set down as a mere chance ; 
it is impossible to expound it in any other way than by 
assuming that one text is immediately or Tnediately an 
abstract of the other ; in the case under consideration, it is 
evident that the author of the Manimekhalai, in this part at 
least, has borrowed ffom the Nyayapravesa of Sankara- 



svamin, nor can it be assumed that both Sattan and Sankara 
borrowed from a common source, ^'or we know that 
Sankara’s source was Dignaga’s Nyayadvara of which a 
Chinese translation has been preserved; but he gave a 
masterly exposition of his teacher’s logical system improv- 
ing however on one point by adding four more to Dignaga’s 
five Paksha-abhdsas, As the same four additional dbhdsas 
are adopted in Rattan’s abstract, it is clear that the latter 
ha§ copied from the Nyayapravesa. In this regard the 
verdict of all unprejudiced scholars will he unanimous. 
Therefore the posteriority of Sattan to Sankaras vamin and^ 
fo7'iiori to Dignaga must be regarded as established. The 
upper limit of the position of the Manimekhalai may be 
taken to be a.d. 500,’ 

In this part the professor takes up the position of 
Sattan’s being later than Dignaga on the basis of what 
is contained in Book xxix of the Manimekhalai. His 
position would be less open to objection, and mine per- 
haps less capable of justification, but for the fact that 
the position taken by him is not altogether without its 
0 wn weak points. We agree in respect of the teaching 
of Buddhist logic in Book xxix of the Manimekhalai 
and that of the Nyayapravesa and Pramanasamuchchaya 
being almost identical. Our difference is only which 
is first and which is next. There are two points in the 
professor’s criticism which challenge consideration. The 
first is that the Nyayapravesa is ascribed to Sankara- 
svamin, the immediate disciple of Dignaga himself. 
There is the further point that the Nyayapmvesa in 
regard to Paksha-abhasas improves upon the teaching of 
Dignaga by adding four more Paksha-nbhasas thus bring- 
ing it into, closer identity with the teaching of the 
Manimekhalai. Therefore the position comes to be 
that the Manimekhalai copied not the work of Dignaga 
himself but that of his disciple.* But the Nyayapravesa 



is regarded by others, on equally valid evidence of which 
the principal features have already explained by me above, 
as the work of Dignaga himself and not of Sankara- 
svamin. Therefore the addition of four Paksha-abhasas 
by Sankarasvamin to the teaching of Dignaga would 
have no basis to stand on. The question then would be 
the teaching of Dign^a according to Nyayapravesa and 
the exposition of the Paksha-abhasas in Book xxix.of the 
Manimekhalai. Which is anterior and which is posterior 
is the question. The main features of the argument 
upon which the particular pramUna is ascribed to 
Dignaga have been indicated above in summary, and 
the references given to where further information 
could be had. I requested the good offices of the 
learned professor to contribute the appended note on the 
other side of the question of Sankarasvamin’ s authorship 
of Nyayapravesa as some of the sources are not acces- 
sible to me. In this context the professor’s position 
that the Nyayapravesa is based on Nyayadvara of 
Dignaga is seriously called in question. Both the 
Nyayadvara and the Nyayapravesa are ascribed to Digna- 
ga, and are regarded as separate works altogether. 
Therefore the position is not quite so clear, and opinion 
is not so unanimous as to the authorship of these 
works. To me it appears that it is a matter of no 
importance comparatively whether the Nyayapravesa is 
Dignaga’s or Sankarasvamin’s as Sankarasvamin is 
accepted as the immediate disciple of Dignaga. I agree 
with the learned professor that the two works are so 
close to each other as to be almost identical that the 
one must have taken it from the other. But the real point 
of difference is whether it is impossible that Aravana 
Adigal could have taught the subject without formulat- 
ing it as in a text-book ’'as Dignaga had done it later. 



Aravana Adigal was a mere teacher, and not a codifier 
and controversialist like Dignaga, whose main purpose 
was to defend Buddhist logic as against those that may- 
be interested in assailing it. It is unnecessary for this 
position that Dignaga should necessarily have learned it 
from Aravana Adigal or somebody else in Kanchi, or 
that he should take himself away to Northern India to 
misap^Dropriate the teaching, as it were, and publish it 
as his own. From all that^ we know of teachers that 
taught in those times they had freedom to make the 
alterations implied in this process to be able to do it in 
their own particular localities. The only characteristic 
feature that ought to be paid attention to in the case of 
Dignaga is that he went about controverting, and had 
therefore to give his teaching a definition which a 
teacher like Aravana Adigal did not perhaps quite feel 
called upon to do from the necessities of controversy. We 
cannot in our present state of knowledge be so definite 
about the position of Akshapada and Vasubandhu that 
these teachers originated the teachirig in regard to the 
five avayavas, or in regard to anything else. It would 
be very difficult to ascribe the originating of any 
very particular item of teaching in these departments 
to particular authors except to the extent of their 
having committed these items of teaching to writing in 
works that have become accessible to us. As a rule it 
may be taken that these teachings were for a consider- 
able length of time in the floating traditions of ihe 
schools before they got entry into written texts, and 
when they actually reached this state they had necessarily 
to take a m»re definite form. Therefore it is quite un- 
necessary to ascribe any moral turpitude to Dignaga in 
doing what he actually did, giving to the teaching of the 
schools before him, of which Aravana Adigal is a mere 


representative, the current definition in this formulation 
of the framEjtas and the avayavas. On the basis of the 
reasons given by the learned professor, the date A.D. 500 
may seem quite reasonable. But Vasubandhu’s date 
is nowadays taken to be somewhat earlier, and 
cannot go as far as A.D. 400. It is now taken as 
proved that Vasubandhu was a contemporary „ of 
Samudragupta, and Dignaga therefore could not have 
been very much later. He might have been somewhat 
younger than Vasubandhu but could not have been so 
late as to be capable of being brought to A.D. 400. 

That from our point of view seems a minor one. 

While we are discussing this point, I may as well 
note here a remark of my friend, Mr. R. Narasimha- 
charyar, till lately Director of Archmological Researches 
in Mysore. He is as well convinced as Professor Jacobi ^ 
himself as to the Manimekhalai expounding the Nyaya- 
pravesa of Dignaga. But he put it to me that, having 
regard to what Book xxix of the Manimekhalai 
expounds as Buddhist logic, it would not be unreasonable 
to argue that Dignaga was an earlier teacher and there- 
fore earlier than the date of the Manimekhalai, that is, 
the second century A.D. In other words, he would take 
the date of Manimekhalai to be the second century A.D. 
and would place Dignaga earlier than that date. This j 

position of my friend goes to indicate that perhaps the 
more legitimate historical argument would be to fix the 
dat^ of the Manimekhalai and shift that of Dignaga, for 
after all, Manimekhalai’s dating is to be primarily on the 
historical considerations indicated above rather than on 
the philosophical systems such as they are in the work. 

I may, however, note that there are difficulties in the ^ 

way of accepting that position. Dignaga’ s contempora- 
neity with Vasubandhu' would be difficult to call in 



question unless we are prepared to throw to the four 
winds all the available evidence of literary tradition 
completel}'. Vasubandhu cannot be taken to an anterior 
date such as this would imply without doing very great 
violence to accredited Buddhist tradition and Chinese 
evidence of a definite character. The more reasonable 
position to take therefore seems to be that which is taken 
in the course of the exposition of the work above. 

The professor’s further point of criticism is in regard 
to the omission of all references to Mahayana. Here is 
the professor’s position : — 

‘ Sattan in his exposition of Buddhism nowhere, as you 
say, refers to Mahayanistic ideas. It may, therefore, be 
assumed that in his time the Mahayana was not yet in exist- 
ence, and accordingly Sattan must be earlier than 
Nagarjuna ; but this conclusion can easily be shown to be 
wrong. For Sattan refers to Akshapada and Nyaya, and as 
in the Nyayasutra, the Sunyavada is discussed and refuted, 
there can be no doubt that in Sattan’s time, the Mahayana 
was already established long since.’ 

In this point again, I am sorry that the professor’s 
argument overshoots the mark. There is no reference 
to Mahayana in the exposition of Buddhism in the Mani- 
mekhalai, and the conclusion cannot be that Sattan did 
not know the Mahayana either to accept it as an orthodox 
system, or to condemn it as a heretical system. That may 
be due to Sattan being anterior to Nagarjuna and there- 
fore of Sunyavada, or of his not knowing it, the teaching 
hot having had sufficient time to have become well 
known, and reach the Tamil country. The latter is the 
view that I* have taken, and not exactly the former, 
guided here again by the governing historical considera- 
tions. The learned professor, on the contrary, bases 
himself on the position that the* teaching of Akshapada 



and the Nyayasutra are identical in every particular. In 
regard to the Sunyavada that is discussed and refuted 
there again, there is not that agreement in regard to 
what exactly the teachings of Akshapada were and what 
additions were made to the Nyayasutras since the time 
of Akshapada. This would mean that the discussion of 
the Sunyavada must be proved to be in the part ascri- 
bable to Akshapada, as in fact it cannot be, if according 
to other scholars who have specialized their studies in the 
Nyaya, Akshapada was far anterior to Nagarjuna himself. 
All I wish to point out is that an argument such as this 
cannot be held to be decisive in our present state of 
knowledge of the chronology of these works. The 
Mahayana is not a product of N^arjuna’s teaching. 
The teaching of Mahayana can be traced back to the 
days of Asoka, if not earlier. But the actual Sunyavada 
in the form in which it has come down to us is still 
generally regarded as the teaching of Nagarjuna. The 
possibilities are that Sattan’s teaching embodies what- 
ever was in the opinion of the Tamil country, the 
orthodox teaching of Buddhism,^about the same time as 
Nagarjuna was expounding the Sunyavada of the Maha- 
yanistic school in the Andhra country across, both being 
the ^result of the same stir, particularly in the continent 
of India, that is indicated in the Mahavaihsa of Ceylon 
as the famous Vaitulya controversy. The heretics are 
located, according to the Mahavamsa, in the coast 
country'set over ^against Anuradhapura extending north- 
wards into the Andhra country. Therefore the time at 
which Sattan lived seems to me the time which actually 
produced Nagarjuna and Deva and possibly a little 
anterior. Much as the great Master of the Law, Hiuen- 
Tsang, doe,g not make uny reference to Dharmakirti who 
lived in his time and perhaps was actually teaching when 



the great traveller was in India, Sattan fails to mention 
Nagarjuna or his Sunyavada. 

The analogy brought in by the learned professor can 
hardly be accepted as holding good in this case. His 
position is : — 

‘ Similarly in the Vedanta Sutra and in the passage from 
the Vrttikara quoted by ^abarasvamin ad. 1, 1,5 the Sunyavada 
is discussed and refuted. It is true that in the Manimekhalai 
there is no explicit reference to the Vedanta philosophy. 
However the same remark applies also to the Nyayavarttika, 
for Uddyotakara altogether ignores the Vedanta though at 
his time it was almost certainly a separate system of philo- 
sophy. The same attitude towards Vedantism taken up by 
Uddyotakara and Rattan rather speaks in favour of the 
assumption that both authors were not far removed in time 
from each other.’ 

Uddyotakara is a commentator pure and simple 
on the Nyaya. It is open to him not to mention the 
Vedanta as a system, unless he saw particular reason for 
doing so, or the actual text that he commented on neces- 
sitated a reference. Sattan stands on a different footing. 
He lays himself out to discuss what he regarded as here- 
tical systems and then to expound the system of Buddhism 
that commended itself to him. The difference is vital and 
of considerable force. It would be therefore difficult to 
believe that Uddyotakara and Sattan were near enough 
in point of time because of the omission in the works 
of both of them of any reference to Vedanta as a system. 

Coming to the exposition of Buddhism in Book xxx 
of the Manimekhalai, the professor’s criticism is*as 
follows : — 

‘ The •translation of chapter xxx of the Manimekhalai 
is very welcome, though it is rather disappointing being a 
mere meagre account of Buddhism. I wonder who Rattan’s 
authority was in this part. It contains only shch teachings 




as may be acknowledged by all Buddhists, both Hinayanists 
and Mahayanists. It has not any reference to the Sarva- 
stivada nor the system of the Sautrantikas, for the central 
conception of these two schools is the theory of the 
dharmas which is not even hinted at in Sattan’s abstract. I 
think he merely related what every Sravaka was supposed to 

It may be stated at once that Sattan although he 
does not indicate the authority upon which he relies for 
the summary of Buddhism in Book xxx refers elsewhere 
to what his authority is. The Buddhism that he 
teaches is, ‘the path of the Pitakas, of the Great one.’* 
He is expounding the fundamental teachings of the 
Buddha and not the teachings of schools of Buddhism 
which are elaborations and modifications of systems- 
builders of later times. It is possible to make the 
inference from this alone that Sattan was anterior to the 
growth of definite systems that we know of in Buddhism, 
particularly the four which are so prominently associated 
with the Buddhism of a later age. But that argument 
need not be pushed to any extreme. A German scholar 
of the twentieth century, laying himself out definitely to 
disentangle the teachings of the Buddha from the excres- 
cences of subsequent ages and teachers, inculcates in 
substance what is the teaching of Sattan, neither more 
nor less.^ So Sattan’s teaching may be regarded as 
the teaching of ‘ the Pitaka of the Buddha ’, and therefore 
indicates a deference to the authority of the ‘ word of the 
Buddha"’ such as it was known to be in his time. In that 
sense it would be what is called Sthaviravada and may be 
regarded as Sautrantika also, not in the technical sense 
that the expression acquired, but in a more general sense. 
Sattan’s anxie;ty is to teach what the Buddha taught. It 

^ Book^xxvi, 1, 66. 

® The Doctrine of the Buddha by George Grimm, Leipzig, 1926, 



is just possible on this very ground to claim for him ante- 
riority, though it is equally possible that a later writer 
could lay himself out to disentangle the actual teaching 
of the Buddha from its outgrowths. But the claim to 
Sattan’s anteriority, according to me, rests not so much 
on this feature as on the particular feature that the other 
systems as such did not come in for commendation in the 
book on Buddhism, and what perhaps is more to be ex- 
pected, in condemnation along with the heretical systems. 
One explanation is possible that, while he condemns 
systems which did not recognize the Buddha, he merely 
expounds a system taught by the Buddha, and passed 
over outgrowths from that system with a tolerance which 
is not unusual in Indian thought. 

I have taken it upon myself to make this elaborate 
criticism of the views of my much esteemed and learned 
friend. Professor Jacobi, because the importance of the 
subject and the eminence of the scholarship of the 
professor alike demand it from me. The stimulus to this 
line of investigation at this time, came from him to 
me, and it is but fair to him that I should acknow- 
ledge it here, and consider his criticism with the respect 
which is due to the eminent source from which 
it comes. The elaborate criticism and the extensive 
answer that that necessitated, alike go to show that the 
line of investigation that was undertaken has shown 
clearly, though somewhat disappointingly, that this line 
of investigation cannot by any means lay claim to tlj^t 
finality which, perhaps in the first instance, was expected 
of it both by Professor J acobi and by myself. If I could go 
by this investigation alone I should not have any great 
difficulty in accepting the position arrived at by the 
eminent scholar. But once that position is accepted, it 
is incumbent upon me, as a student of history, to test the 



position by other lines of enquiry. Without repeating 
the details of history, I may merely draw attention here 
to two facts which stand out. The first is that the author 
IS demonstrably a contemporary of Senguttuvan Chera 
and of his younger brother, Ikngo, the author of the 
Silappadhikaram. That is one fact of history which it 
would be difficult to call in question. The second is that 
at the time to which the work refers which is undeubted- 
y the time of the author, Kanchi was not under the 
allavas, nor under the Tondaman chieftain, Ijam Tira- 
yan, but under the princely viceroys of the Chola family 
The history of the Pallavas as such certainly goes back 
to the age of Samudragupta in the middle of the fourth 
century as we take it at present. That is a date not far 
removed from that of Dignaga. The Tondaman chief- 
tains, particularly Tondaman Ilam Tirayan of Sangam 
feme, must have ruled earlier. The Chola ascendency 

be referred to an age anterior to this. This position had 
been sought to be got round by the Epigraphists by the as- 
sumption of a Chola interregnum previous tothe Pallava 
king Kumaravishnu II who in one of his records is said 

crittolsmlfdetffir"^^^^ Leaving aside for the moment 
criticism of details in connection with this particular 

statement it may be said at once that the Chola interreg- 
num such as is postulated must be an interregnum 

ortlme“®Trf' or roundly one ceiury 

of J:ime. - The Sangam works give evidence ef ir- u- 

being under the rule of the Cholas andlen of fte’ 

Tondaman Ilam Tirayan, and arranging the authors and 

the patrons referred to therein in the ofder ,f “ucSL^n 

merely, we get to somewhat like this line of live «ner 

tions and alength of time of a century. Therefore nn' 

conclusion can be accepted which does" not tSfy this 


condition prinaarily ; the age indicated by Professor 
Jacobi on the line of reasoning that he has adopted, with 
the philosophical systems of the Manimekhalai as a basis, 
can hardly satisfy this condition. The alternative 
suggestion of Mr. Narasimhacharyar has been briefly 
adverted to. 

While therefore acknowledging with gratitude the 
criticism of the learned professor, I may join in his regret 
that we cannot come to an agreement on this investiga- 




Monsieur Tubianski 

In an excellent note in the Bulletin oi the Academy of Sciences, 
1926, Russia, Monsieur Tubianshi attacks the problem of the 
authorship of the treatise, Nydyapravesa, and gives his vote in 
favour of the Nydyapraveia known to the Chinese and regarded 
by them as the principal treatise on Buddhist logic being the 
work of Sankarasvamin, and not of Dignaga. I am obliged to 
Professor Jacobi of Bonn for a copy of the note, and am merely 
giving a summary of the arguments in favour of this position as 
presenting the other side of the question, the more readily as 
Professor Jacobi writes to intimate that he is in full agreement 
with Monsieur Tubianski.^ There are four works bearing names 
though slightly different but near enough for any one of 
them to be confounded with another. Two of these are in 
Chinese, two in Tibetan. The first of the Chinese works is 
Nydyapraviia ascribed to Sankarasvamin. 

2. The Nyayadvdra in two translations by Ywan-Chwang 
and FTsing respectively, and attributed to Dignaga. 

3- Similarly there are two works in Tibetan {d) Nydyapra- 
visadvara and {b) Nydyapravesa, both of them ascribed to 

Both Murakami and Sugiura, on an examination of the 
Chinese texts, but without any knowledge of Tibetan sources, 
came to the conclusion that the two Chinese works, Nydyapravesa 
Bsxdi^ydyadvdra were different. S. C. Vidyabhushan working 
from the Tibetan side alone and relying chiefly upon an 
examination of one of the two works, Nydyadvdra, reduced these 
to three, the two Tibetan works being regarded by»him as one. 

^ For a full statement of the opposite position reference may be made to the 

Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, Baroda, volume 



Mironov was able since to compare the Tibetan Nyayadvara with 
the Sanskrit Nywyapravesa and found the two to be the same 
work, the Tibetan apparently being a translation from the 
Sanskrit. Mironov also considered the Nyayapravesa as also 
identical with the two works relying on the remark of Harib- 
hadra, the Jain commentator. According to Tubianski Harib- 
hadra’s comment cannot bear the inference drawn from it that 
the NyWyapravesa was a work of Dignaga. 

H. Ui in his Vaiseshika philosophy (1917) was in a position to 
compare the two Chinese texts, Nydyapravesa and Nyayadvara, 
and the Tibetan work Nyayadvara. His conclusion was that the 
Tibetan Nyayadvara or Nyayapf^avesadvara was quite different 
from the Chinese Nyayadvara, but is the same as the Chinese 
Nyayapravesa. This reduces the position of there being only 
two works, the Tibetan Nyayaprav2sadvara being a translation 
of the Chinese Nyayapravesa, the two constitute but one 
work, and the Chinese Nyayadvara stands distinct. S. C. 
Vidyabhushan in his latest work on the History of Indian 
Logic was able to prove that the Tibetan Nyayapraviia was 
identical with the Tibetan Nyayadvara. So the two Tibetan 
versions come to be versions of the same work and get to 
be the equivalent of the Chinese work Nyayapravesa, the 
Chinese Nyayadvara standing distinct. The question to decide 
therefore is who is the author of the Nyayapravesa, and 
who of the Nyayadvara. The latter is correctly attributed, 
according to Tubianski, to Dignaga, as this figures among 
the works of Dignaga according to FTsing under the slightly 
different names Hetu-Vidya-Nyaya-dvara Sasira abbreviated 
into Nyayadvara. In this form it is also mentioned by Dignaga 
himself in his Pramana Samucchaya Vftti. Further the Chinese 
Nyayadvara contains ilokas quoted by Vachaspati Misra as 
from Dignaga, although they have been found to be in the 
Pramanasa^nucchaya of Dignaga. The Nyayadvara therefore 
becomes a work of Dignaga. Did he write the Nyayapravesa 
also ? Here it would be much better to quote Tubianski 
textually : — 

‘ But if it i? true that Nyayadvara was written by Dignaga, it 
is impossible that Nyayapravesa should be also written by him. 
For this we have inner and outer grounds. The inner ground is, 
that both works are not only different, but so different that they 



could not be produced by the same author. Sugiura pointed out 
already that in Nyayapraveia there are added some types of 
fallacies of the thesis which are not mentioned in Nyayadvam and 
that the fourteen types of fallacies of refutation (dushanabhasd) of 
Nyayadvara are omitted in Nyayapraveia, But the absence of 
these fourteen dusanabhosas signifies a radical reform of the whole 
logical doctrine inside Dignaga’s school of course. These 
dmambhosas fill almost half of the whole text of Nyayadvara, 
and represent a hardly justifiable remainder of the anciept brah> 
manical Nyaya, Dignaga himself ascribes their origin to 
Aksapada and though the questpn is not as yet cleared histori- 
cally, it seems that they correspond indeed to the twenty-four 
varieties of jati, expounded in the first chapter of the fifth book of 
the Nyayasutras, They were reduced— probably by Dignaga to 
fourteen, and incorporated not only into his Nyayadvdra, but even 
in the Pramanasamucchaya, which must have been written consider- 
ably later. That they are useless as such and that all their logical 
and even eristical import can be safely represented by the ordi- 
nary hetvabhasas, treated under the topic of sadha7iabhasa, was 
clearly shown by the disposition of Nydyap^'avBsa, as well as by 
Dharmakirii in his Nyayabhidu, If we add the extreme lucidity 
of the terminology and of the whole manner of exposition which 
characterizes NyayapravBia in contradistinction to Nyayadvara, 
their belonging to different authors will be beyond doubt.’ The 
following are the external evidence : — 

1. Chinese information must be reliable as the Nydya- 
pravesa has remained their basal text for logical studies. 

2. Among the list of works of Dignaga in I’Tsing, none 
of tfie names could be regarded as corresponding to the name 
NydyapravBsa according to Tubianski. 

3. The Tibetans apparently made an error in equating 
the Nyayapraveia and Nydyadvdra as the Tibetans did not 
possess a translation of the Nyayadvara, 

4. The Tibetans seem almost aware of their error when 
they say in one of their catalogues that the Nyayapraveia should 
not be confounded with the Nyayadvara. 


The Goddess Champapati, the guardian deity of this 
land of Jambudvipa, who had her birth on the top of 
‘ the golden mountain,’ with a coiffure of matted locks 
and an effulgence resembling that of the sun, remained 
seated under the shade of the spreading branches of a 
Jambu tree, performing penance to counteract the evil 
wrought by Rakshasas of cruel deeds. King Kantama, 
the Chola, wishing to have water which would make the 
dynasty of the sun prosper, prayed of Rishi Agastya for 
the favour. Agastya accordingly allowed his water jar to 
get upset, and the water flowing therefrom flowed straight 
east and reached the seaJn the immediate neighbour- 
hood of where goddess Champapati was doing penance. 
The venerable lady got up to welcome with pleasure the 
young lady of the river thus approaching, and addressed 
her ‘ Hail ! heavenly Ganga, much beloved of all, the 
brilliant one that satisfied the desire of the king for 
water.’ Rishi Agastya who did not feel it undignified 
in him to follow her, told the young lady Kaveri, ‘ Dear 
one, this venerable ascetic is worthy of your obeisaiipe. 
Do show her the respect due to her.’ The daughter 
of Tamil, of unfailing bounty even when the dry summer 
should last far longer than its length, and even when the 
sovereigns of the Tamil land should become unrighteous 
by chance, sovereigns who in the land of Bhai^ta \^ere 
far-famed for unswerving righteousness, made a profound 
obeisance and stood respectfully in front of her. ‘ May 
you prosper^ this city which, from the days of creation 
by Maha- Brahma of all the creatures of the world of gods 
and all the worlds of Brahma, had been known by my 
name ; may it be known hereafter by yours.’ 



The great city composed of two separate divisions was 
in the tumult of the announcement of the great festival 
to Indra ‘ of the hundred sacrifices.’ Hearing of the 
announcement, Chitrapati, her mind distraught, sent 
word of it to her daughter Madhavi through her com- 
panion Vasantamala. Following this came Manime- 
khalai’s entry into the flower garden outside the city 
for gathering flowers. Then, seeing that, the young 
Chola prince was following Fer into the garden. She 
entered the crystal hall in it and shut herself in. Seeing 
her foi-m through the glass, he returned with a mind 
somewhat unhinged at the failure. Then there appeared 
the goddess Manimekhala ; carrying Manimekhalai away 
from the garden, she left her in the island of Mani- 
pallavam. This goddess of high repute then woke 
up Manimekhalai’s companion Sutamati in the garden. 
Manimekhalai herself woke up in the island and finding 
herself alone, wandered about till she came in sight 
of a Buddha seat of bright effulgence. She learnt 
from the miraculous seat all that took place in her 
previous birth. Appearing before her then, goddess 
Manimekhala taught her some mantras to be used 
as -occasion arose. Then there appeared before her 
Tivatilakai, the goddess of the island. By means of this 
last, Manimekhalai obtained.possession of the miraculous 
begging-bowl of the Buddha. With the begging-bowl 
in her hand, and accompanied by her mother and her 
congpaniOn, Manimekhalai visited the sage Aravana 
Adigal. The sage taught her the actual nature of 
Aputra. He further recounted to her how he obtained 
the begging-bowl from the ‘goddess of learning.’ 
Manimekhalai carried that miraculous bowl in her hand 
and entered the streets of Puhar for begging. Ladies of 
chastity in the city deposited alms for her in the bowl. 



The good damsel having satisfied the insatiable hunger 
of Kayasandikai, entered the public hall of travellers in 
the city. Hearing of her presence there, the prince 
followed her to the public hall. To save herself from 
his importunities, she assumed the form of a Vidyadhara 
woman. The king, his father, strict in administering 
justice, transformed the State-prison into a house of 
charity* The Vidyadhara Kanchana approached Mani- 
mekhalai in the belief that she was Kayasandikai, his 
wife; he found her however irfesponsive, to his surprise and 
chagrin. This Vidyadhara cut the prince in two by his 
sword when he came near her, in the belief that he was 
responsible for his wife’s estrangement from him. Sorrow- 
stricken at his death, Manimekhalai consoled herself on 
hearing what the divine statue had told her. The king 
then threw her into prison from which she was ultimately 
released. Manimekhalai taught the queen the Buddha- 
dharma and passed on to the kingdom of Aputra. 
Taking him with her she went to Manipallavam. There 
she assumed the form of a venerable ascetic and entered 
Vanji. In that city she learnt from teachers of different 
sects their religious dogmas. Searching there for 
Aravana Adigal and ‘ the mothers ’ she entered Kanchi. 
At Kanchi throwing off her disguise, she became a dis- 
ciple of Aravana Adigal. Taught by him, she assumed 
the form of an ascetic and devoted herself to the perform- 
ance of penance in order that she might destroy birth 
in this world. These separate incidents constitute the 
story of her life, which prince Ilango listened to with 
great kindness, when the prosperous grain merchant 
Sattan, had«set these separate incidents, each in a book 
of its own, and composed -a work of thirty poems in 
excellent Tamil on the subject of the renunciation of 
Manimekhalai. * 




On the advice of Agastya of the Malaya Hill, the 
Chola king who destroyed the ‘ castle in the air ’ of the 
Rakshasas^ stood before Indra in profound obeisance and 
prayed of him, for the enhancement of the fame of his 
old city, that Indra might be present during the twenty- 
eight days of the (great Indra) festival in Puhar. As 
Indra with great beneficence consented, the well-informed 
people of the city used to celebrate the festival without 
fail. Therefore all those teachers of varying religions 
who expounded absolute truth, actual practice of the 
world, the good teachings of truth, and of release from 
worldly life, and those expert in ‘ the science ’ ^ of time 
never ceased to reside in the city. Along with these, 
there were the gods themselves who had assumed forms 
of less brilliant effulgence, people of various languages 
that had collected in vast numbers than was usual, the five 
bodies of ministers and the eight bodies of officials of 
varying degrees. These arranged for the announcement 
of the festival by beat of the great royal drum, as the 
guardian deity in the public square and the deity set up 
in the bazaar will both molest the inhabitants of the city 
if, liy chance, the celebration of the festival should be 
forgotten. In this belief the prosperous drum in the 
temple of Vajrayudha^ was taken out and placed on the 
back of the royal elephant, and by beat of that drum, 
the announcement was made in the following terms : — 

* ‘ May the city of this old royal family prosper ! 
May the land be blessed with the three rains every 
month ! May the planets follow their course because of 
the righteousness of the sovereigns ! On the occasion of 

^ Astrologers. i 

The characteristic weapon of Indra, Sakti, thunderbolt. 



the propitiatory festival of this great land, the thousand- 
eyed Indra along with the four classes of Devas (gods), and 
the eight ganas or groups of Devatas (minor gods), would 
arrive here in the city making the heaven of Indra empty, 
as was this royal city itself, when the great Chola Karikala 
left the city on a distant expedition of conquest. Do there- 
fore decorate the city, the great royal roads and the halls 
of faukless learning ; put in their appropriate places 
jars filled with water, seed vessels with budding sprouts 
and statues holding lampS. Decorate the streets and 
buildings with areca and plantain trees carrying bunches 
of fruit, creepers of vanji and other kinds, and plant 
them with sugar-cane. Along the open plinths of houses 
suspend strings of pearls from pillar to pillar. Remove 
the old soil and spread new sand over the streets. Hoist 
flags and hang festoons over the gateways of houses. 
Tidy up temples ranging from that of the god “with 
an eye in the forehead to the guardian deity of the 
public square, with what requires to be done under the 
instructions of those expert in it. Let those well-versed 
in the holy teachings take their place under awnings, or 
in canopied halls. Let those well-versed in various reli- 
gions assemble in the halls of learning set apart for discus- 
sion. Give up feelings of enmity even to those who'are 
inimical to you. Do all these things, these twenty-eight 
days when the gods and men in friendly company keep 
moving about on hillocks of sand, in gardens full of 
flowers, in islets in river beds and in bathing gjiats.’ 

This announcement by beat of the royal drum Vas 
made while warriors with drawn swords, cars and cavalry 
and elephants moved in procession escorting the State 
elephant which carried the drum. The announcement 

^ ^iva.« 




closed with the prayer that hunger, disease and enmity 
may cease to exist, and that rain and the resulting 
prosperity may perpetually be on the rise. 


On the occasion of the great festival thus announced, 
Madhavi and her daughter Manimekhalai were* not in 
their accustomed place. Distracted with grief at this 
remissness on the part of her <?aughter and grand-daughter, 
Chitrapati summoned her daughter’s companion Vasan- 
tamala and sent word through her that the great Indra 
festival had been announced. Vasantamala being of 
Ghitrapati’s way of thinking went to where Madhavi and 
her daughter were, and seeing their languishing form, 
told her in sorrowful tones ; — 

‘ Have you cause of dissatisfaction ? You that are 
expert in the arts in their varied branches, does it not 
ill-become you to assume the garb of penance ? So say 
all people in the city, the wise people and the others 
alike. It does not become you to be that. It is much 
rather matter for shame that you should adopt this line of 
conduct.’ Madhavi replied : ‘ Having heard of the death 
of my beloved, I have lived without sending my life away 
along with his. I have lost the esteem of this beautiful 
old city and have given up all feeling of shame. When 
women in worldly life lose their husbands, they heave 
sighs oi sorrow and give up their own lives. Failing 
that, they usually consign themselves to the flames, enter- 
ing fire as if it were the cool water of a tank. If 
they should not do that, they would wear their body out 
in prayer and penance in order that they may, in another 
birth, live happily with their beloved. This is the way of 
the chaste in this, broad world. Our dear one Kanriaki, 



the chaste wife of my beloved, finding it impossible to 
bear, the sorrow of the calamity that had overtaken her 
husband, with her hair all dishevelled, with tears flowing 
in torrents over her breasts, burnt the great city of the 
Pandyas by mutilating her breast. Manimekhalai the 
daughter of that chaste one is fit only for the life of an 
ascetic and not for the life of a courtesan full of evil. 
Further than this in the extremity of sorrow I came 
here to the hermitage of the holy ones and threw myself 
at the feet of the sage Aravaha Adigalas the only saviour. 
Learning from me what had befallen my beloved one, he 
taught me that “ those that are born enjoy only growing 
suffering. Those that cease to be born do enjoy un- 
ending great bliss. By attachment comes the first ; 
giving up attachment brings the next. Bear this in mind.” 
He further expounded the character of the 'sllas (discip- 
line according to Buddhism), and impressed it upon me 
that this is the only way of saving oneself. Please there- 
fore convey this to my beautiful companions and my 
mother.’ Hearing this from her, Vasantamala, not 
knowing what to do, returned as if she had dropped a 
jewel of immeasurable value in the sea. 


Information of this reached Manimekhalai, as the 
time had come for her to give up attachment to things 
worldly. So she wept tears of great sorrow for the fate 
that had befallen her father Kovalan and his chaste ife. 
She was therefore asked to throw away the garland of 
flowers that^he was then making as it had got contaminat- 
ed by her tears, and directed to go and bring fresh 
flowers for making other garlands as a diversion from 
her sorrow. Madhavi’s companion Sutamati protested 



against her going alone as the great charm of her looks 
was likely to prove dangerous to her in the great city. 
Sutamati took occasion to explain to Madhavi that a 
similar lonely adventure was the cause of her presence 
in the Chola capital. She was the wife of a Brahman 
Kausika in Champa (Bhagalpur on the Ganges). She 
went into a garden alone for gathering flowers when she 
was carried off by a Vidyadhara who was flying through 
the air to see the festival of Indra at Puhar. Having 
spent some time with her, fee left her behind in the city 
and went away to his own place, and that accounted for 
her presence in the city. She pointed out therefore the 
danger that beset young women being found alone, and 
offered to escort Manimekhalai to the garden. Reject- 
ing a number of flower gardens in the city as being 
exposed to one or other of the dangers from men or 
beings other than men, she pointed to a garden outside the 
city, with ever-flowering trees, and sacred to the memory 
of Buddha. It contained in it a pavilion made of crystal 
containing a lotus seat with the footmarks of the Buddha 
of miraculous power. Flowers in bloom shot into full 
blossom immediately, if placed on it ; full blown flowers 
placed on it never faded; bees would not smell them. 
Further, people who wished to offer flowers to any of 
the 'gods would have their wishes fulfilled if, with 
their thoughts on their gods, they placed their flower 
offerings on the seat ; if without any thought flowers 
should ,be placed on it, they would never go out of it. 

This Buddha seat with the peculiar features described 
above was erected in this garden by the divine architect 
Maya, to illustrate at one and the same time the two 
principles that those who do a thing without setting 
their minds upon it in full, will not reap the fruit of 
their action 7 and that whatever is done without an un- 



disturbed resolution of the mind to do so, will not bear 
fruit. Having said this Sutamati with Manimekhalai 
went along threading their way through the various 
crowds of idle people, a crowd following these two 
praising the beauty of Manimekhalai and blaming her 
mother for having consigned her to this life of asceticism, 
and ultimately reached the flower garden, which was 
their objective. 


Having reached the garden, Manimekhalai and her 
companion wandered round enjoying the lovely scenes 
in it, to which Manimekhalai’s attention was drawn by her 
companion. The city was in the meanwhile in great 
commotion as the state elephant Kalavegam got into mast 
and went out of control. As it turned hither and thither 
in the city like a ship caught in a tornado causing destruc- 
tion on its way, the prince, heir-apparent, mounting his 
horse, went after it at the head of a guard to bring it 
back to discipline. Having successfully done so, he 
was returning in his car leading the victorious guard 
that attended him and the crowd that gathered round 
the cavalcade. Passing through the street of tiie 
dancing women, he saw, in the front', room of the first 
floor of one of the houses, a merchant prince standing 
like a very statue with the stem of his vina in his 
embrace, his sweet-heart by him. Looking through the 
window the prince asked the young merchant what* it 
was that had so stunned him. The young merchant 
said in reply, that, as he was playing on the vhia, he 
looked out through the window and saw Manimekhalai 
in the garb of a Buddhist noviciate passing along with 
her companion towards the flcnver garden -outside the 



city. The sight of her brought to his recollection all 
that befell her father Kovalan in Madura. Thus 
disturbed in mind, his fingers passed unconsciously on to 
the wrong string, and that was what actually brought 
him to the painful state of abstraction in which the 
prince found him. Understanding from what he said 
that Maniimehhalai had gone to the garden, the prince 
turned back telling the young merchant that he would 
proceed forthwith and bring back Manimekhalai with 
him in his car, and rapidly "drove forward. When the 
car came near the garden Manimekhalai heard the 
rattle of the approaching wheels and told her companion 
that she had heard from her grandmother that prince 
Udayakumara had set his heart upon her, and that, in all 
probability, the approach of the rattling sound gave 
indication of his coming. She wished to know what 
exactly she could do to escape this calamity. Sutamati, 
her companion, asked her to get into the crystal pavilion 
in the garden and bolt the door from the inside. She 
then took her stand five bows’ distance from the 
pavilion. The prince having approached the pavilion 
and seeing the solitary maiden at some distance 
accosted her ‘ You are now standing alone here in this 
lonely garden. I understand you came here along with 
Malaimekhalai, Has she attained to the wisdom that 
she sought ? Has she recovered her charming smiles ? 
Have her eyes got back their enchanting beauty ? How 
is it that she has given up the vihara of the Buddhist 
mendicants and come to this garden ? ’ On hearing this 
Sutamati felt as one thrown into an underground cellar 
without opening, and said to the prinoe in reply: 
‘You are descended from the great Chola Karikala, who, 
as a youth, assumed the garb of age in order that he 
may do jusfice in a cause brought up before the monarch. 



Young as you are in age, are you not ripe in wisdom? 
Is there anything that women can teach you ? There 
cannot be. Even so let me present unto you the 
following : — ‘‘The human body is the product of action 
(Karma); is the source of further action. If you remove 
that which is worn to decorate it, it will show nothing but 
flesh. It is subject to age and decay. It is the seat of 
disease. It is the cause of attachment to those that 
attach themselves to things earthly. It is full of evil. 
Long-standing hatred lies c hidden in it as a poisonous 
cobra in its hole. It contains within itself the con- 
sciousness which is subject to suffering in the present, to 
helplessness to get out of it, to fainting in the effort to do 
so, and bitter sorrow as a result thereof. Understand, 
therefore, oh, prince, this indeed is the nature of a 
human being. Please turn aside from this, your 
attachment to her. ” ’ Before even these words could 
reach his ears, he saw within the crystal chamber the 
form of Manimekhalai. 


At sight of the fair form of Manimekhalai, he stood 
for a moment rapt in admiration of the beauty of her 
form, like a painter who had just conceived the idea,sf a 
beauty for painting. Realizing however, that it^was 
Manimekhalai herself, enchanting in her beauty like the 
Goddess Lakshmi dancing in front of the Asuras, his one 
thought was to enter the pavilion. He went round the 
crystal wall feeling with his hand for the door,* and^ot 
finding anything to give indication of an opening, he 
turned round to Sutamati and asked her to describe to 
him what sort of a maiden her companion was. She 
replied : ‘ If she is not attracted by your youthful beauty 
and will not feast her eyes with the sight q| your young 



form, she is undoubtedly one given to austerity as a 
result of her previous good deeds. She is capable of 
invoking imprecations that will not fail. She is one on 
whom love has no influence.’ The Prince said in reply 
that when love gains possession of her heart, there is 
nothing that would restrain her, and that, enchantingly 
beautiful as she was, he would still make her his own, 
and turned away from both of them to return .-to the 
Palace. As he turned round, he told Sutamati that the 
whole town used to speak o^ her as one that was left in 
the midst of a Jain nunnery by a Vidyadhara, and asked 
her to let him know how it happened that she had given 
up the Jain hermitage and accompanied Manimekhalai 
to the garden. Sutamati replied that she was the 
daughter of a Brahman and his wife both of Champa 
(Bhagalpur in Bengal). Having lost her mother early, 
and while she was still under the guardianship of her 
father, she was carried off by a Vidyadhara called Maru- 
tavega, from her native place. The father, coming in 
search of her towards the famous bathing ghat of 
Kanyakumari ‘constructed by monkeys’, saw her in this 
town as he was returning after his morning bath in the 
Kaveri. Having enquired how I came to be here, he 
wddd not give me up, although I had become unworthy 
to live among Brahmans, and took upon himself the life 
of a mendicant beggar to eke out his and my livelihood. 
In one of his begging rounds a cow, recently in calf, ran 
at him and tore open his stomach. Holding his entrails 
in his hand, he came to the hermitage of the Jains, which 
not long since w^as my habitation, and sought asylum with 
them. The inmates of the hermitage rather than give 
asylum turned me out from thei'e and sent me along 
with him. We were wandering in this forlorn condition 
crying out if There were any kind-hearted people to take 



us into their protection. A kind-hearted Buddhist 
Bhikshu who was coming on his mid-day round, handing 
his begging bowl to me, carried my father to the viliWray 
where he and his companions lived, and thus helped to 
dispel my father’s pains and sorrows of death. This 
hermit Sanghadharma taught her the teaching of the 
Buddha ; — ‘ My king possessed of all good qualities 
by nature, the object of all good qualities without 
diminution, having learned by experience various 
kinds of life in this world, took it upon himself to use 
his life not for the attainment of his own salvation, but 
for the exercise of kindness to things living, in order 
that the whole mass of living beings might attain to that 
salvation. Thus turning the wheel of the law, he con- 
quered desire. Excepting his beautiful feats and their 
celebration, I have given up using my tongue for any- 
thing else. May you prosper, Oh excellent Prince. This 
in brief is my history ! ’ 

Having understood her history, the prince took leave 
of her giving her his mind that he would still gain the 
heart of Manimekhalai through her grandmother Chitra- 
pati, and went away from the garden. Manimekhalai 
came out from the crystal chamber fixing her eyes upon 
the Prince, and told Sutamati : — ‘ My heart runs after 
the Prince, stranger though he is to me, and notwith- 
standing the fact that he described me as possessed of no 
virtue, as having no right knowledge for the performance 
of penance, not having the protection of caste, and liable 
to be purchased for a price. Instead of feeling a«gry 
that he should have thus described me contemptuously, 
how is it tha-t ray heart yearns for him ? Is this the nature 
of what is called Love ? If that is so, may it be destroyed.’ 
Thus saying the two stood for a while where they 
were. • , 




J ust then there appeared in the guise of a lady of the 
city, the goddess Manimekhala, with a view to witnessing 
the celebration of the great festival just then taking place 
in the city. She went round the pavilion containing the 
seat of the Buddha, reciting the following laudation ; — 
‘ Shall I describe you as the knowing One, the pure One 
of good deeds, the ancient One, the exalted One, who 
knew how to lead life in this world ? Shall I describe 
you as the One who got beyond the reach of love, who 
was the sure guardian of all,^ as the One who destroyed 
the eneray, evil conduct? How shall I describe the 
feet of him who set the wheel of a thousand spokes in 
motion, without a thousand tongues to describe with?’ 
Having said this, the goddess Manimekhala came down 
to the earth like a gem emiting fire and stood aside. Just 
then the setting sun sent across a bright effulgence of 
light on the palace tower which was the face of the lady, 
the city of Puhar. All nature began slowly to transform 
itself from the aspect of day into that of evening, when 
darkness strode in into the beautiful garden just like a 
young woman, who having lost her husband on the field 
of battle, returns, with nothing of her bright cheerfulness, 
to her parents. 


The evening passed and the rising moon sent forth 
its silver beams as if a whole quantity of milk was poured 
out from a silver jar. The goddess Manimekhala 
appeared worshipping the footmarks of ‘ the Primeval 
First, One possessed of inexhaustible mercy ’. Seeing 
the anxious-looking Sutamati, and her companion, she 
asked her what it was that troubled them. The former 
described to her what had taken place just a little before, 
and gave Imr to understand the danger in which 



Manimekhalai was placed at the time. The Goddess 
replied that the love of the prince to Manimekhalai would 
not diminish. He went out of the grove, as he did, out 
of regard for the fact that the grove was one where dwelt 
holy ones engaged in their penance. It would be 
dangerous if Manimekhalai went out of the precincts into 
the public highways of the town. She therefore advised 
them to get through the western postern of the garden 
and spend the night in the Chakravala Kottam, inhabited 
chiefly by those devoted* to performing penances of 
various kinds. The place was referred to by that name 
only by the goddess and by Marutavegan, who brought 
Sutamati down to Puhar ; but to others in the great city 
the place was known by the name ‘ the temple of the 
burning-ghat (Sudukattu Kottam) Sutamati asked to 
know the reason why the goddess called the place by 
that name. The goddess said that the burning ground 
which came into existence along with the town itself, 
was next adjoining the grove. It is enclosed in a circuit 
of walls broken by four gates. It cottained a temple 
dedicated to Kali, and monuments of various sizes 
bearing inscriptions descriptive of those whose dead 
remains they cover. These inscriptions give the details of 
the name, caste, mode of life and station in society^nd 
the manner of death of those whose monuments* they 
happen to be, each one of them. There are besides pillars 
dedicated to the various gods of the burning-ghat to 
which are made various offerings. There are^platforms 
built of stone, chambers for guards for sheltering them- 
selves from wind and weather. There are besides 
triumphal .arches and shady spaces in various parts. 
This place is also divided into sections for various forms 
of disposal of the dead. A small space is set apart for 
burning corpses ; another where the corpses are simply 



thrown ; a third where the corpses are actually buried in 
graves dug in the earth ; others where corpses are set in 
small chambers made in the earth, their mouths being 
closed afterwards ; and lastly another part where corpses 
are left covered over by huge earthern pots. Up to the 
midnight people keep coming and going constantly 
engaged in one or other of these various ways of 
disposing of the dead, and there is unceasing noise in 
the locality created by the crowd of visitors, the tom-tom 
beaten for the dead, the soucids of those that recite the 
merits of recluses that died, the cries of those that weep 
for the dead, the howling of the jackals and the hooting 
of the owls. Different kinds of trees also are found 
grown close to each other. There are places with 
standing Vuhai trees, the favourite haunt of evil spirits ; 
with the tree Vila, the resort of birds eating fat and flesh 
of the dead ; the shade of Vanid, the resort of the 
Kapalikas ; places of Ilandai to which resort mendicant 
ascetics making garlands of broken skulls. There are 
other unshaded, unwooded places, the resort of people 
who live by eating the flesh of corpses. The whole 
place is otherwise strewn with pots in which fire had 
been carried ; pots of another shape in which articles for 
oth3l* funeral uses had been carried ; torn garlands, 
broken water pots, fried paddy and other articles of 
offerings to the dead. While death without regard to 
age, standing, condition or kind of life, goes about killing 
in heaps in this fashion, to be disposed of in this field of 
death as described above, is there anything more foolish 
that could be imagined than that there should be people 
who still place faith in wealth and, losing thejjiselves in 
its enjoyment, live their life without doing good ? 

Such a fearsome place of death happened to be 
visited by a Brahman youth in the belief that it was a 



part of the city. He saw there an evil spirit in ecstatic 
dance, and taking fright at the apparition, ran to where 
his mother, Gautami, was and could hardly tell her that 
he gave up his life to a spirit of the burning-ghat he 
had the misfortune to see, when he died. Distracted 
with grief at the death of their only support, the mother 
cried out in despair : ‘ Who could it be that took 

away the life of the youth who was the mainstay of her 
own self and the aged Brahman, her husband, both of 
them blind and faint with age and infirmities ? Carrying 
her only son’s corpse, she went to the gate of the 
burning-ghat, invoked the goddess of the town and 
demanded of her how she happened to fail in her duty of 
protection of this youth, when she had made it her busi- 
ness to see that no harm befell anybody in the burning- 
ghat, places of assembly, the ground round old trees, 
sequestered temples, and other places occasioning fear 
in people. She demanded to know if the goddess lost 
her righteousness, and if so, what exactly it was that 
she herself can do in regard to the matter.’ 

The goddess appeared in response to this invocation 
and asked her what it was that made her so sorrow- 
stricken as to brave the dangers of a midnight visit to 
the burning-ghat. Learning from her of the death of 
her son, she told the disconsolate mother that no devil 
nor evil spirit did take her son’s life ; his ignorance and 
his previous deeds are entirely responsible for his death. 
Old Gautami offered to give up her life if the. goddess 
would restore her son to life, as thus restored^he would 
be a protection to his father. The goddess replied again 
that when ®ne’s life goes out of the body, it follows the 
track of its deeds and gets into another birth immedi- 
ately ; there could hardly be any doubt in regard to this. 
‘To restore life that is gone’is not matter possible of 

. • * \ 



achievement. Therefore give up useless sorrow for the 
death of your son. If it were otherwise, are there not 
many who would give life for life for kings of this earth? 
Do you not see in front of you hundreds of monuments 
erected to the memory of dead sovereigns. Give up, 
therefore, talk of cruelty, which would lead you only to 
the sufferings of hell.’ Gautami said in reply : ‘ I have 
heard it said, gods can do whatever people pray for, on 
the authority of the Veda. If you will not give me the 
boon that I pray for, I shall this moment destroy my 
life.’ The goddess in her turn said : ‘ If, within the 
circuit of the Universe, any one of the innumerable 
gods can grant you the boon that you ask for, I shall be 
quite pleased to do so myself. But see now what I can 

Having said this, she brought down before Gautami, 
the four classes of Arupa (formless) Brahmas, sixteen 
Rupa ('having form) Brahmas, the two light-emanating 
bodies, the six classes of gods, innumerable Rakshasas, 
the eight kinds of men, several groups of stars, ‘ the day 
asterisms,’ the planets, all of them comprised within the 
circuit of the Universe and capable of granting boons to 
those that pray for them. Bringing all these in the pre- 
sence of Gautami the goddess asked these to give the 
boon'of the sorrow-stricken Brahrhan lady, and explained 
to them the condition of Gautami. All of them in one 
voice gave reply of a tenor similar to that in which she 
ans vered 'the question to Gautami. Understanding the 
truth from-this, Gautami reconciled herself in a way to 
her sadly bereaved condition, and, disposing off the dead 
body of her son, returned. Thereafter to illustrate to 
the coming generations the extraordinary power of the 
Goddess Champapati, Maya, the divine architect, con- 
structed this fiionument with the mountain Meru in the 




middle, with the seven mountains all round it, four great 
islands, two thousand smaller islands, with other places 
of note, containing the kind of beings said to live 
in them. This was done by him as memorial of the 
visit of the beings of the Universe at command of 
Champapati. As this building was in the immediate 
vicinity of the burning-ghat, it came to be known popu- 
larly as the ‘ temple of the burning-ghat Manimekhalai 
who was listening to this colloquy between her friend 
and the goddess, could only remark : — ‘ This indeed is 
the character of life on this earth’. After a little while, 
Sutamati the companion fell asleep, and the goddess 
Manimekhala putting young Manimekhalai to sleep by 
a charm, carried her through the air thirty yofanas south 
and leaving her there, went her way. 


The goddess returned to Puhar, and appeared before 
Prince Udayakumara spending a sleepless night in bed, 
revolving constantly in his mind that with the dawn he 
would still secure possession of Manimekhalai. Presenting 
herself to him in a vision, the goddess addressed him in 
the following words : ‘ Oh, Son of the great king ! If Ae 
king change from righteousness ever so little, planets 
themselves will move out of their orbits ; if planets change 
their course, rainfall will diminish ; with shortage of 
rainfall, all life on earth will cease; the king will often 
cease to be regarded as king, because he would sdemjiot 
to regard all life as his own ; therefore cast awdy the evil 
thoughts that you set upon Manimekhalai, who has 
assumed the* life of a celibate.’ Passing from there to 
the garden, and waking up Sutamati who was fast asleep, 
she told her that she was goddess Manimekhala, that 
she came there to see the great festival of Indra, that she 
17 A 

. • • V 



(Sutamati) had no cause to fear, as the opportune time had 
come for Manimekhalai to follow the path of the Buddha, 
and gave her the information that for this reason, she 
had carried Manimekhalai away from Puhar and left her in 
Manipallavam, wherefrom she would return on the seventh 
day to Puhar, having learnt in the meanwhile all that 
took place in her own and Sutamati’s previous existence 
on earth. The Goddess added that although she .would 
appear in a disguise, which would baffle identification of 
her by anybody in the city, her identity would be to her 
manifest ; on the day that she returns to Puhar, there 
would be many strange appearances in the city. Having 
said this, she asked Sutamati to inform Madhavi of the 
appearance of the goddess and of what took place in 
respect of her daughter, pointing out to her that she was 
on the way to enter the right path. The goddess then 
told Sutamati that Madhavi had already knowledge of 
who the goddess was. ‘ When Kovalan told Madhavi 
to name their daughter after the patron deity of the family, 
I appeared before MMhavi in a dream and told her: 
“You have become the mother of a child who, devoting 
herself to a life of penance, would destroy the influence 
of the God of Passion so completely that he would for 
ever remain helpless not knowing what to do.” She 
asked Sutamati to remind Madhavi of this, which she 
told her in a dream though in a manner of one talking 
to her in physical presence.’ 

Sutamati woke up and in distress because of her 
separation from Manimekhalai, was in great fear of 
remaining where she was, as she could hear the noise of 
various fearsome transactions, at dead of Alight in the 
burning ghat of the city. She therefore went across the 
postern in the enclosing wall, and entered the adjoining 
Chakravalakottam. Entering the great Dharmasala 

BOOK Vlli 


there, she retired to a corner in the building, where to 
her great fear, a statue, on a pillar in front of her, began 
to address her in the following terms ; — ‘ Oh, the rare 
daughter of Ravivarma, the wife of Durjaya, of immense 
cavalry, you that met your death by an elephant when 
you had lost control of yourself, so as to bring about in 
consequence the death of Tarai your elder sister ! You 
the daaghter of the Brahman Kausika of Champa inhabited 
by Karalar ! You that came into the city in the company 
ot Marutavegan and joined the company of your elder 
sister Tarai! You that were known Virai in your 
previous birth, and are known Sutamati in this life, listen. 
Your younger sister Lakshmi, understanding all that 
happened in her previous life and yours, will return to 
this city seven days from to-day. Therefore have no 
fear that she has been taken away from you.’ In these 
words the statue spoke to her in the voice of a God. 
Sutamati, her fears increased on Tearing this, managed 
to spend the night somehow, and, starting at break of 
day, went through the streets of the city to the house of 
Madhavi and recounted to her all that took place the 
previous day. On hearing of what had taken place and 
of the disappearance of Manimekhalai, Madhavi Ayas 
stricken with sorrow like a cobra which had lost its crest 
jewel, while Sutamati, in her company, remained in- 
capable of action like a being whose life had gone out of 
her, because of the separation of Manimekhalai from her. 


While Sutamati was in this state of sorrow, Mani- 
mekhalai w^ke up from sleep on the sandy beach of 
Manipallavam. Looking round she found nothing that 
was familiar to her, and felt herself as strangely placed 
as a soul in a new birth. While she was Lardiy able to 



think what she could do, the sun rose, and in the sunlight 
she began to wonder whether this was a part of the 
garden near the city, which she had never seen before, 
and called out for Sutamati, her companion : — ‘ Oh, 
Sutamati, you have hidden yourself, you are causing me 
great sorrow ; 1 do not understand whether I see things 
as they are, or in a dream. My heart is quaking with 
fear, give me word in answer ; the darkness of night has 
left ; Madhavi, my mother, would be in great anxiety. Oh, 
the finely bangled one, come ®n ! Have you left the place ? 
Is this a miracle brought about by that lady that appeared 
before me who seemed an expert in magic art ? 1 hardly 
know what I can think or do ; I am in great fear being 
alone. Do come quick.’ Crying out like this, she ran 
about here and there to bathing-ghats on one side and to 
the sand dunes on the other. All her search was in 
vain, and finding nobody that she knew, she began to 
weep aloud. Thinking of her father and his tragic end, 
and calling upon him : ‘ Oh, ray father, father, who had 
gone to another kingdom with your most delicately formed 
wife, and suffered death from the swoi'd of authority.’ 
She wandered about till she came to what seemed a 
seat of the Buddha. The seat had been placed there by 
India, and had the miraculous power to let those who 
worshipped it know their previous life, as the Buddha 
himself had delivered a sermon sitting on it. This 
happened on the occasion when two neighbouring Naga 
chiefs, related to each other, fought for possession of it. As 
thewar proved destructive Buddha appeared before them 
and pacified the combatants by preaching the sermon. 


At sight of this Manimekhalai forgot herself in 
wonder. Her hands autdmatically folded over her head ; 



from her eyes flowed tears of joy ; she circumambulated 
the divine seat three times, and prostrated before it. 
Getting up she looked at the seat again, and began to 
recollect all that had taken place in her previous existence. 
She recounted to herself what had happened in the 
following terms : — ‘ Oh, Holy One, one that knows the 
ultimate truth, I now understand clearly that all thatyou 
said on the banks of the river Kayankarai is turning true ; 
in the great kingdom of Gandhara, in the eastern province 
of it, was the city Idavayahi (Rishabaka ?). The king 
that ruled from this city, as his capital, was Attipati. 
You Brahma Dharma, who art his brother-in-law, foretold 
in conversation with him, while teaching him Dhayma : 
“ In seven days’ time from now there will be an earth- 
quake in Jambudvipa. As a result of this, this capital 
city of yours and four hundred yojanas of territory in the 
great Naganadu wall get submerged. Therefore abandon 
this city and go away to another, sharp.” The king 
announced this by beat of drum to all the citizens and 
vacated the city with them. As he was moving at the 
head of his people to the city of Avanti in the north he 
had to remain encamped on the banks of the river 
Kayankarai. Then, you Holy One ! there was the ear^- 
quake, as you predicted, on the day, and at the time 
indicated, and the royal city of Idavayam was destroyed. 
The king and his court, their respect for you increased by 
this incident, surrounded you and you were delivering 
them a holy sermon. At that time,! came with my 
husband Rahula to listen to the sermon. Seeing me 
you were pleased to say that my husband Rahula would 
die on the skcteenth day by a kind of cobra the sight of 
which was death (Drishtivisha) ; that I would enter the 
funeral pyre with him ; that I would then be born in the 
city of Puhar, and that a great misfortune would befall me ; 



that the Goddess Manimekhala would then appear at 
dead of night, and carrying you away will settle you 
down in an islet of the sea south of Kaveripattinam. You 
will then learn what had transpired in this birth, while 
engaged in worshipping the seat of Buddha. Then will 
come to you the recollection of all that I say to you to- 
day. I then requested of him that he might also enlighten 
me as to what next birth my husband would have. I 
received an answer from him that that matter would be 
explained to me by the GodSess, who carried me away 
from Kaveripattinam. That Goddess has not yet 
appeared ! ’ Saying this to herself, she remained weeping 
as before. 


While she was in this state of sorrow and uncertain- 
ty, the Goddess Manimekhala, knowing that Manime- 
khalai had already learnt of her previous birth, and that 
she was possessed of a beautiful disposition, came down 
from the clouds. Moving through the air, she recited 
so as to be audible to Manimekhalai, ‘ When living 
beings should have lost all feeling, when their ears 
sko^ild have become deaf to the good teaching, when 
they should have lost all right understanding, and thus 
reduce the world to a turmoil consequent upon poverty 
of right knowledge, you appeared like a glorious morning 
sun, after there had been long suffering owing to the loss 
of l^e d^ily appearance and disappearance of the sun, to 
make L^iarma prevail in the world. At your feet, 
therefore, I offer my worship. I regard your seat as 
yourself. I have set you on my tongue, h have placed 
you on my head. 1 have seated you on my heart, a 
full blown lotus flower.’ When she came within hail of 
Manimekhalai, she asked her to desist from weeping. 



Descending to the earth, she went right round the seat 
thrice and offered it worship. Mapimekhalai in her turn 
made due obeisance to the Goddess and asked her, ‘ By 
your grace, I am now possessed of knowledge of my 
previous birth ; where is Rahu|a born who was then my 
husband ’ ? The Goddess replied : ‘ Oh, Lakshmi, you 
were one day with your husband in a garden having 
fallen gut with him in a love quarrel. He fell at your 
feet to remove your displeasure. While in that position 
there appeared a Buddhist Charana (one that moves 
through air) by name Sadhu Sakkaran. He had gone 
to Ratnadipa to set the “ Wheel of Law ” going, and was 
returning across the air. Being mid-day, he came down 
to the earth as it was the hour for taking food. Seeing 
him, you were greatly frightened, and, feeling ashamed 
of yourself in the condition in which you happened to be, 
you offered your obeisance to him. Seeing your dis- 
comfort, Rahula demanded who he was in a tone of 
anger. Trembling with fear, you shut his mouth and 
told him that it was an act of great error on his part not 
to have done due worship at the feet of the great one 
who had just descended from the air and remained with- 
out addressing him in prayer. Taking him with you, 
you again made profound obeisance and offered to bring 
him food and drink though both of you, the husBand 
and the wife, were not of his way of persuasion and 
requested him to accept the food of you. The Sadhu (the 
saint) consented and promised to take it. The merit 
that you have thus acquired by feeding him will never 
abandon you and will ultimately get rid of your rebirth. 
That Rahula* your husband, is the Prince Udayakumara 
who came after you to the garden at the city. It is this 
that explains why he had exhibited that strong affection 
for you and, what is more, your*mind also ffels attracted 

. ^ 


to him. To change that feeling of attachment and set 
you on the good path, I brought you overto this island 
and showed you this seat. There is more that I can 
tell you. In your former birth, ^ when you weie the 
daughter of Ravivarma and his wife Amudapati, king 
and queen of Ya^odharanagara, you had two ^sisters 
Tarai and Virai. Those two had married the king of 
Kacchayanagara in the kingdom of Anga by» name 
Duchchaya (Durjaya) who took them one to see t e 
hills in his kingdom, and wa*s with them on the banks of 
* Ganges oAis return. Aravana Adigal canre to hrs 
camp then and in reply to his enquiry as Jo what 
b™ ght his Holiness there, the Holy one replied that 
he had come to that part of the country to worship the 
fooLInts on the hill (GrdhraWta). He said that of dd 
Ruddha stood on the top of the hill and taugh 
Dh^nna, in order that all living 
themselves from sorrow and live in happiness, 
preaching his footmarks acquired permanence , 

Sing in that condition ever since, the hi 1 acquired 
re name Padapankayamalai (the hill of the Lotus foot- 
mark) He advised the monarch also to go and offer 
.^orshio at it. By the merit so acquired by worship at 
the'feet both your sisters are born respectively as your 
^ *:^er’and he/companion Sutamati. Oln M^pimchha- 
\ lai now you understand your former birth. You h 

acquired a notion of what ■ih^ Dharma is. You 

''‘will some day in future hear^ of * 

secra: -gg.. other persuasions. These latter may 

hesita?'‘.,g teach you because you are a young woman, 
^yf’.s such knowledge is essential to you, you will^ have 
assume a form more worthy of that teaching. o 

®-*^v5ngshe taught Manimekhalai two (spells or 

'iSations, at the thought of which she could acquire 



respectively the capacity to move through the air and to 
assume any form that would suit her for the occasion. 
She retired telling her that one essential that Manime- 
khalai should remember was that she should adopt the 
path of Dharma as taught by the Buddha, and the next, 
that she was to offer her worship to the seat and return. 
Having ascended the air, she came down again and 
asked Manimekhalai, ‘ You have undertaken to follow the 
path of discipline. Human bodies are built of food, and 
hunger is a great necessity.-’ She taught Manimekhalai 
therefore another mantra^ which would get rid of hunger 
at the thought of it. Having given her this, she left and 
disappeared through the air. 


Manimekhalai walked about admiring the beauty of 
the sand dunes, flower gardens and cool tanks. In a 
short while there appeared before her a lady who ac- 
costed her : ‘ Who are you that have arrived here alone 
like a woman who had suffered shipwreck ? ’ Manimekha- 
lai enquired in reply to which of her births the 
question referred, answering the question none 
the less that in her previous birth she went by the 
name Lakshmi and was the wife of a prince Ci.lled 
Rahula. In the present birth, she was the daughter of 
Madhavi, a dancing woman. She was known by the 
name Manimekhalai, and she was brought to that parti- 
cular spot of that island by the Goddess Maq,imekhala 
from the pleasure garden just outside of her native 'city 
Kaveripattinam. She concluded by saying that by 
means of hej worship of the ‘ Buddha-seat ’ in front of 
them she had learnt her previous birth. So saying she 
wished to know who the other lady was. The lady 
replied that in the neighbourhood of that island there 



was another called Ratnadvipa. ‘ There on the high peak 
of the hill Samantakuta there are the footprints of the 
Buddha. Having offered worship at the footprints I 
came to this island long ago. Since then I have re- 
mained here keeping guard over this dharma-sez.t” 
under the orders of Indra. My name is Tiva-Tilakai 
(Dvipa Tilaka). People following the Dharma of the 
Buddha strictly, offering worship to this “ Bpddha- 
seat ” will gain knowledge of their previous birth, know- 
ing their past as a result cf this worship. Such are 
few in this world. It is only those few who are fit to 
acquire Dharmapada forsooth. Since by such a 
worship you have acquired knowledge of your previous 
birth, you must be such a great one. In front of this 
seat there is a little pond full of cool water overgrown 
with all the variety of water-lily. From that will appear 
a never-failing “ begging-bowl” by name Amuda-Surabi 
(Amrta Surabhi). The bowl appears every year on the 
day (of full moon) in the season of the early sun, in the 
month of Rishabha, in the fourteenth asterism, the day 
in which the Buddha himself was born. That day this 
year is to-day and the hour is just now. That Bowl, I 
ween, will come into your hand. Food put into it 
will'be inexhaustible. You will learn all about it from 
Aravana Adigal, who lives in your own native city.’ 
Manimekhalai on hearing this, making her obeisance to 
the Buddha-seat, went along with Tiva-Tilakai, and, 
circumambulating the pond, stood in front of it. The 
bowl emerged from the water, and turning round to the 
right reached the hands of Manimekhalai. Manimekha- 
lai felt delighted beyond measure and uttere^J the follow- 
ing chant in praise of the Buddha : — 

‘ Hail ! holy feet of the Hero ! that subdued Cupid, 

‘ Hail ! hofy feet of Him^! who destroyed the evil path, 



‘ Hail ! holy feet of the Great One ! labouring to set others 
in the path of Dharnia, 

‘ Hail ! holy feet of the Perfectly Wise ! who gives to others 
the eye of wisdom, 

‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! whose ears are deaf to evil words, 

‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! whose tongue never uttered other 
than truth, 

‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! who visited hell itself to destroy 
, sufferings there, 

‘ Hail ! holy feet of Him ! that destroyed the sorrows of 
those of the Nag? world.’ 

‘ To praise you is beyond the power of my tongue ; to 
bow at your feet is alone possible for my body.’ To 
Manimekhalai, in this attitude of prayer Tiva-Tilakai 
expounded the sufferings of hunger and the merit 
accruing to those that enabled creatures to appease 
hunger. ‘ Hunger,’ she told Manimekhalai, ‘ will des- 
troy good birth, will kill nobility, will cut off the hold 
that learning has upon the learned people as the great 
support of life, will deprive people of all feeling of 
shame, will spoil qualities that are beautiful, will make 
people stand at the door of others with their wives. 
Such indeed is the nature of the sinful craving hunger.’ 
To praise those who destroyed it in words is beyond ^e 
power of my tongue. She illustrated this by “ the 
following incident in the life of Visvamitra. Owirf^ to 
failure of rain and consequently of crops, Visvamitra was 
stricken with hunger. To satisfy that he wandered 
here, there and everywhere, and got nothing that he 
could eat. Stricken beyond endurance, he made up his 
mind to eat the flesh of a dog, some of which was avail- 
able. Bef»re eating it however, he made the usual 
offerings to the Gods beginning with Indra (Vaisva- 
deva). Indra coming to know of it ordered an 
abundance of rain, and thus r&moved famine that led to 



this baleful consequence. Tiva-Tilakai said : ‘You may 
have heard the story already. Food that is given to 
those who can afford to provide it for themselves is 
charity sold. Food provided to allay the hunger of 
those that cannot otherwise satisfy it is true charity, and 
all right kind of life in this world comes to such people. 
Among those that live in this world those that give food 
are those that give life. Therefore go forward and give 
to those that are hungry that which will destroy hunger.’ 
Manimekhalai, having heardThis, said in reply : ‘ In my 
former life, my husband died of a cobra, whose sight 
brings death. I ascended the funeral pyre with him and 
while burning, I bethought myself of the food that I 
gave to a Buddhist Bikshu, Sadhu Sakkara. As a result 
of that good thought at the moment of my death, this 
hunger-relieving bowl has come into my hands, I believe. 
Like a mother’s breast which at the sight of the face of 
her hungry child begins yielding milk, I wish to see this 
bowl in my hand provide a supply of food inexhaustible 
at sight of those who are oppressed with hunger, and 
wander about in dripping rain or scorching sun indiffer. 
ently in search of something to appease it.’ After a 
litjle while Tiva-Tilakai gave leave to Manimekhalai to 
retuin to Puhar with the bowl. Manimekhalai, after 
a profound obeisance to her and circumambulating the 
Buddha-seat again, thought of the mantra which gave 
her the power to fly, and flew through the air. She 
returned ito Kaveripattinam and meeting her mother and 
companion told them of her previous birth to their 
wonderment; taking them along with her she went to 
see the holy sage Aravana Adigal, telling them on the 
way that the bowl in her hand was the inexhaustible 
food-supplying one which once belonged to Aputra, and 
that the only' way for th^m to attain good life on this 



earth was by placing themselves under the beneficent 
guidance of Aravana Adigal. 


Manimekhalai set out with her mother and her 
companion, and reached ultimately where Aravana 
Adigal was. There she met the venerable monk, his 
hair all grey, his body loose with age, while the tongue 
showed no signs of trembling, accustomed as he was, 
through a long series of years, to teaching. She went 
round him three times and made her obeisance. She 
then related all that happened to her ever since she 
went into the flower-garden adjacent to the city till her 
return, and concluded that she was directed by the 
Goddess Manimekhala to learn from him more about the 
previous life of her mother and her companion. She 
also reported that she received a similar direction from 
Tiva-Tilakai regarding the history of Aputra. Aravana 
Adigal evinced great pleasure at hearing this, and began 
immediately to relate the story of Madhavi and 
Sutamati : — ‘ On one occasion 1 visited the Pada- 
Pangaya Malai (Grdhrakuta), and on my return met 
Durjaya Raja in a grove. To my enquiry whether hp 
and his queens were well, he told me, in great sorrow, 
that one of them Virai died by going unguarded in 
front of a newly captured elephant as a result of drink, 
and that her sister having heard of this got up the 
terrace of the palace and died by throwing herself from 
it. I consoled him by saying that this was the result 
ot previous and sorrow would be useless.’ 

Addressing ihe two, he said. ‘ You two have come into 
the world again like actors in a new disguise.’ Turning 
to Manimekhalai he said ; ‘ At this time dharma is 
diminished in the world and sitiful action has been on 



the rise. But believing there is still the possibility of 
the existence of some slight tendency to dharma^ I have 
not relaxed in my efforts in teaching it. That dharma, 
people in this world do not know. But within the circuit 
of this universe, the devas understand it and at their 
request the Deva will come down again to this world from 
the Tushita Heaven in the year i6i6. Then everyone 
in this world will feel impelled to practise the doctrine 
of mercy.’ ‘When the “sun of Buddha” appears, 
the moon and the sun will Shine without interruption, 
asterisms that mark the day will move in their orbits 
without stopping, rains will never fail, earth will yield, 
abundance, living beings will not experience evil, th^ 
wind will blow in the right direction, prosperity wili- 
attend all directions of the compass, the great sea will 
give good things in plenty, cows will of themselves yield 
pailfuls of milk, birds eating plenty will not have to go 
out in search of prey, beasts and men will give up even 
their natural enmity, fearsome beings and demons will 
cease to molest, human beings with defective organs 
will not come to birth. Those that should be born then 
and have the good fortune to hear the dharma from Him 
v\yll cease to be born again. Therefore it is that birth 
aftdt birth, I have made it my business to praise 
constantly the feet of My Lord, who acquired the know- 
ledge at the root of the Bodhi tree.’ ‘ Further than this, 
Manimekhalai ! ’ he said, ‘ you have to do certain things 
in this city. It is only after that that your mind will reach 
the* proper stage for receiving the dharma that I might 
teach. These two are born with you because of the 
merit they acquired by worshipping the Buddha-feet at 
Grdhrakuta. In your company they will get rid of the 
results of all their previous action and attain the state of 
Nirvana, You have obtained possession of the “ elixir 

BOOK xin 


of life Do go forward and destroy the hunger of all 
living beings by means of it. There is only one act of 
charity, whether it be to the Gods or to human 
beings, and, that is, relief of suffering from hunger.’ 
Manimekhalai assented. 


The ^age, Aravana Adiga|, then continued giving the 
history of Aputra in the following words : — 

‘ There lived in Varanasi a Brahman teaching the 
Veda, known by the name of Abhanjika, with his wife 
Sali. Having fallen away from conduct expected of her 
high station, she wished to get rid of her sin by bathing 
in the sea at Kumari (Cape Comorin) notwithstanding 
the fact that she was enceinte. (In this condition a holy 
bath at sea is prohibited according to Bramanical notions.) 
In the course of her journey, she gave birth to a boy 
child about a march from Korkai, one of the capitals of 
the Pandyas, and, leaving it behind without pity in a 
sequestered plantain garden, she went her way. Hearing 
the weeping of the baby, a cow which was gra2ing not 
far off came near and, licking the child, gave it milk 
and kept with it for seven days, protecting it fror© 
harm. A traveller from Vayanangodu came that '#ay 
along with his wife. Hearing the baby weeping, ‘he 
approached, with his wife, the place wherefrom the sound 
came. This Brahman Ilambhuti, taking pity on the for- 
lorn baby, told his wife that it could not be the child of 
a cow, and, regarding it as his own, congratulated his 
wife and himself that after all they had been blessed with 
a baby. Returning to his village, he gave the boy the 
education worthy of a Brahman child, and, after he had 
attained to the age of receiving the Brahmanical thread, 
he put him through the further course of education 



suitable to a Brahman youth. At this stage another Brah- 
man of the village celebrated a great sacrifice. The boy 
entering the sacrificial ground discovered a cow, ready 
decorated for the sacrifice, in distress. He made up his 
mind immediately to steal the cow overnight and walk 
away with it unobserved. He loitered about the place 
and when night had advanced, he released the cow, and 
taking hold of it, walked away from the localityo The 
Brahmans discovered soon after that the cow was missing, 
and came upon the young man with the cow in the course 
of their search. Taking hold of the cow, they began 
beating the young fellow for having stolen it. Seeing 
her saviour oppressed in this fashion, the cow attacked 
the priest who was beating the boy, and ran into the 
woods after severely wounding him. Aputra accosted 
his oppressors, and requested them to listen to what he 
had to say, ‘ Feeding on the grass that grows on the 
village common, cows feed all people the world over from 
birth onwards. With a creature so kind-hearted, what 
cause could there be for anger? ’ They said to him that 
he was talking contemptuously of sacrifices without un- 
derstanding the prescribed path of the Veda, which it is 
c^ear he did not know. Hence it is but proper, they said 
tha4 he was called ‘ Cow’s son ’ (Aputran). The youth 
retflrted that ‘ Rishi Achala was the son of a cow, Srngi 
was the son of a deer, Rishi Vrnchi was the son of a tiger, 
and Kesakambala, the revered of the wise, was the son 
of a fox^ Are these not Rishis accepted of your tribe ? 
If io, as -you will admit it is so, is there much that is con- 
temptible in being born of a cow?’ On hearing this one 
among the Brahmans said that he knew the, actual birth 
and parentage of the boy, and related the story of how he 
was born of Sali, the Brahman woman of Benares, as he 
had heard it from herself. The Brahman said that he 



did not care hitherto to speak about this, as it was no use 
doing it. It is now clear that by his conduct he justified 
the sinistral character of his birth. To this the boy 
retorted again by pointing out that both Vasishta and 
Agastya were born of the heavently courtesan Tilottama. 

‘ If so why talk of my mother Sali, ’ making the innuendo 
that Sali was an alternative name of Arundhati, the model 
of chas,tity ? But this dispute had its effect, however, 
in that his foster-father Bhuti cast him out as of unclean 
birth, and as it came noised abroad that he stole the 
sacrificial cow, he no more got alms in Brahman villages. 
Finding himself at the end of his resources, he came to 
Southern Madura, and made the front yard of the temple of 
the Goddess of Learning there, his abode. Therefromhe 
used to go daily on begging rounds and returning with 
what he got, distributed it among the blind, the deaf, the 
maimed, and those who had no one to fall back upon, and 
even those that were oppressed with illness. Calling 
upon all these and feeding them first, he took for his por- 
tion what was actually left over. When he had done 
this, he went to sleep with his begging-bowl as his pillow 
and thus spent many years. 


While he was thus leading his life uneventfully^ on 
one occasion some people approached him at dead of 
night while he was asleep, and asked him some food to 
satisfy their extreme hunger. Not having the peans to 
satisfy them, he was in great distress of miiid at* his 
inability to be of assistance to the suffering people, 
when the ‘ Qoddess of Mind ’ (Sarasvati) appeared before 
him, and handed to him a bowl that she had in her hand, 
telling him that even if all the country should be stricken 
with famine, the bowl would remain inexhaustible. ‘ Give 
19 .... 



as much as ever you like, there will be no exhaustion 
unless it be of the hands that received it.’ Receiving 
the bowl with great joy and gratitude, he offered thanks 
to the Goddess, and attended immediately to the wants 
of those who were hungry to their satisfaction. There- 
after he made it his business to provide food for all 
living beings that he could reach so much so that the 
yard of the temple where he lived became a conco,urse of 
people, animals, birds and other creatures wanting food. 
Intimation of this was received by God Indra by the 
usual quiver visible in the white carpet, on which was 
placed this throne. The God appeared before Aputra 
immediately, in the shape of an old Brahman doubled up 
with age, to give him what boon he wanted. The old 
man told him that he was no other than Indra, and that 
he came there to give him a boon that he might ask, as 
he greatly appreciated the merit of the great gift of food 
that he was making from day to day. On hearing this, 
Aputra laughed, till his sides ached, in derision, and 
addressed Indra in the following words : — ‘ People that 
practise Dharma, people that take care of others and 
protect them from harm, people that practise penance, 
people that do deeds without attachment, these do not 
constitute the heaven of the Devas. Oh valiant Lord of 
the kingdom of the Devos ! I want nothing of you. I 
want in fact nothing more than this solitary bowl which 
enables me to satisfy the unquenchable hunger of those 
that feel hungry and enjoy the sight of their satisfied 
countenances. I wish for nothing more.’ Indra got 
wroth at this disappointing attitude of his and vowed 
vengeance within himself. Returning to his place, he 
sent down an abundance of rain, and made the whole 
land of the Pandya kingdom smile with cultivation and 
prosperity, se that there, may be no creature wanting 


sustenance. Aputra soon found there was no room for 
the exercise of his charity, and, leaving his place, he 
went out in search of those that may need his services. 
Getting none even after that, he was going about like 
one forlorn, when some of those who had recently arrived 
from overseas, from the country of Savakam, told him 
that in that distant country there was a famine prevalent 
at the time owing to the failure of rain and a great 
number of the inhabitants had died of famine. He 
immediately made up his rrlind to travel to that land with 
his bowl in order that he might find an opportunity for 
the exercise of his charity. He took ship with this 
object along with other passengers. Being overtaken 
by a storm, the ship had to unfurl and to make a halt 
for a day. The ship set sail again at dead of night in 
the belief that all the passengers were in. Aputra, how- 
ever, got left out, and being distressed at this great 
disappointment to him, he resolved to give up life rather 
than live useless in that uninhabited island, the bowl of 
miraculous power also being of no service in his 
possession. He, therefore, threw the bowl into a pond 
with a gomuka (cow’s mouth spout) with a prayer that 
it might reappear on the surface of the water one day in 
the year. He further wished that if ever any •one 
appeared on that occasion who made it his life-woA: to 
exercise charity and protect all living beings, the bowl 
should pass into his hands. Having done this, he laid 
down without food or drink, and thus passod out- of 
existence. ‘ As this was taking place,’ Aravaaa A(^gal 
said, ‘ I happened to be there and in reply to my enquiry, 
he gave me the whole history before giving up life.’ 
That Aputra took birth again in the land of Savakam from 
the cow of the king of the country very much like the 
sun which, having risen in the 'East, destroys darkness. 

148 MA5riMEKHALAl 

and, gives up its light in the West, only to rise again in 
the East. 


Aravana Adigal continued to relate the further story 
of Aputra. The cow that for seven days from birth 
fostered the child Aputra, had taken birth as a result of 
its own good deeds at Dhavalamalai in Savakanadu 
where a Rishi by name Manmukha was living his austere 
life. In its new birth it hSd horns and hoofs of gold, 
and had a plentiful yield of milk even before it had 
calved, which it made use of for feeding human beings. 
Seeing this phenomenal occurrence, the Rishi who under- 
stood the past, present and future, declared that the cow 
would give birth to a hero from out of a golden egg. 
Aputra, till he gave up life in Ma^iipallavam for the 
purpose of doing charity to all living creatures, had never 
lost thought of the cow that had saved him from death 
and brought him up during the first seven days of his 
existence, and, as a consequence, he appeared again on 
earth, as the Rishi had predicted. He came into exist- 
ence like the very Buddha himself on the full moon of 
the month of Vaisaka. Though it was not the season of 
the Tains, there was a drizzle of holy water as at the 
appearance of the Buddha himself. All the holy ones in 
the Chakraviila at Puhar struck with wonder at the 
appearance of these good omens, and not understanding 
the cause thereof, went down to the hall where the 
statue on The pillar was accustomed . to giving explan- 
ations of such phenomenal occurrences. The statue sure 
enough gave them the explanation that the phenomenon 
that caused them surprise was due to the appearance df 
Aputra in another birth, and directed them to the sage 
Aravana for further detaifs of his history. The king, of 



Savakam at the time, Bhumichandra by name, had for long 
been exercised in mind because he had not the fortune 
of an heir. In one of his visits to the Rishi he was 
presented with the child that was born of the cow, and 
he since then, brought it up as his own. ‘ That boy has 
now come of age and he is ruling over the land.’ 
Addressing Manimekhalai, the sage said: ‘ While the 
great rh^er Kaveri flows with water and provides the land 
with that much-needed element, living beings suffer for 
lack of food for some cafise as yet not understood. 
Therefore there is no use that you keep this boon un- 
used as if the Gods should keep the vessel containing 
the celestial ambrosia, after they had taken their fill, un- 
used for others.’ On hearing this Manimekhalai paid 
her obeisance to the sage, and assuming the form of a 
bhikshuni, and with the bowl in her hand, passed into 
the streets. Immediately on seeing her, there gathered 
round her a crowd, much like the crowd that had 
collected round Yaugandharayana when he assumed the 
disgusting disguise of a man suffering from disease, and 
entered the streets of Ujjain for the purpose of releasing 
Udayana, his master, from the prison into which 
Pradhyota the king had thrown him. The people 
wondered that this comely damsel who had fouifd a 
hiding place in the heart of Udayakumara should ?hus 
have made her debut in the royal streets of Puhar with 
the begging bowl in her hand. At this moment Manh 
mSkhalai declared that the first handful of alms she would 
receive should be that die best among the chaste, women 
of the locality should offer- to her. Kayasandikai gave 
the immediate reply that, among women of chastity who 
could compel the clouds to rain, the most excellent one 
was Adiraiand that they were then in front of her house 
‘ Go into her house and accept* alms from Her first.’ . 




Having said this Kayasandikai explained how Adirai 
attained to that eminence in chastity. Adirai’s husband 
went by the name Saduvan, and, having taken a fancy for 
a courtezan lost all the wealth he had. Being reduced 
to poverty in this manner, he was neglected by his own 
sweetheart. He then resolved to go to a foreign country 
and acquire wealth by trade. He took ship along with 
merchants trading overseas, and suffered shipwreck on 
the way. Taking hold of a** piece of the broken mast, he 
swam till he reached the side of a hill in an island in- 
habited by naked Nagas. Some of the other passengers 
of the boat similarly escaped, a few of whom returning to 
Kaveripattinam itself. These people not knowing what 
had happened to him gave it out that all the other 
passengers had died of the accident. Concluding from 
what she heard that her husband also should have died, 
Adirai resolved, with the approval of the citizens, to burn 
herself on a funeral pyre. Lighting up the pyre as 
usual in the burning ghat, she entered the fire declaring 
that she might go to the place that her husband was in, 
as a result of his works. Finding that the lighted pyre had 
ao effect on her, she was distracted with grief even more 
thah before, as she felt that even fire would not burn her, 
the'^reat sinner that she was. There came to her a voice 
from the air at that time telling her that her husband was 
not dead and that he had escaped to the island of the 
naked Nagas. The voice assured her that he would not stay 
there long and would return with the mercantile fleet of 
Chandradatta, the overseas merchant. Adirai returned 
home and was constantly doing such good deeds as would 
hasten the return of her husband. . Saduvan, on the 
contrary, having reached the island, had fallen fast asleep 
out of fatigue under the Shade of a tree. Having sighted 



him, the Nagas approached him and woke him up 
gleefully, believing that they would make a good meal of 
him. Saduvan, however, having had occasion to cultivate 
their language, spoke to them in their own language to 
their great surprise. They took him to their leader. 
Saduvan found him and his wife in a cavern, much as a 
bear and its mate, surrounded by pots for brewing beer 
and dripd bones emitting smell of the most offensive 
kind. Talking to him for a little while, Saduvan managed 
to prevail upon him to the- extent of creating a good 
impression. To the enquiry how he came there, Saduvan 
narrated what had happened. The leader ordered 
immediately that he might be provided with plenty of 
meat and drink, and a young woman for his companion. 
Pained at the ignorance displayed, Saduvan declined his 
kind hospitality. Surprised at this refusal, the Naga 
leader enquired angrily whether there was anything that 
pleased men more than women and food, and demanded 
to know if Saduvan knew of any. ‘ Intoxicating drinks 
and the taking of life have been condemned by people 
of higher views. The death of those that are born, 
and the birth of those that die are really phenomena like 
wakefulness and sleep. As those that do good deeds 
obtain Heaven, and those that do evil reach Hell;J;he 
exalted ones have condemned these as causing evil. • It 
would be well if you take note of this.’ The Naga chief- 
tain laughed in anger and said contemptuously, ‘ you tell us 
that life that leaves the body takes another form and 
enters another body. Will you explain howJifegt)es 
from one body to another?’ Nothing ruffled by this, 
Saduvan replied : ‘ When life is in the body, it experiences 
that which occurs ; when life leaves the body, that self- 
same body does not experience any feeling even when 
it should be set fire to. Therefore you learn that 



something that was in the body has left it. Everybody 
knows that when one leaves his place, he must needs be 
somewhere else. You experience in dreams that life can 
travel many leagues leaving the body here. Therefore 
you can understand that when life leaves the body here, 
it goes into another even at great distances.’ When 
Saduvan made this exposition, the habitually angry Naga 
fell at the feet of merchant Saduvan and said j ‘ It is 
impossible for me to keep life and body together without 
meat and beer. Therefore fpach us that good life that is 
possible for us.’ Saduvan said in reply : ‘Well said; 
you will follow the good path. If people suffering 
shipwreck should hereafter come to you alive, give them 
protection. Do not kill living creatures for food. Be 
satisfied with the flesh of animals that die.’ ‘ We shall 
follow with pleasure this path of life which we can.’ 
Thus saying he presented to Saduvan sandalwood, aloes, 
cloths and other spoil of shipwreck that from time to 
time they took possession of from those who came to 
them like Saduvan. Accepting these and taking ship in 
the convoy of merchant Chandradatta, Saduvan returned 
to Kaveripattinam and was at the time leading the life of 
householder along with his chaste wife. ‘ So it is,’ said 
Kayasandikai, ‘ that I asked you to accept alms of her 
first-,’ Manimekhalai entered Adirai’s house and stood 
silent like a picture undrawn by artist’s hand. Adirai 
went round her with words of praise, and offered her alms 
that wopld fill her bowl with the wish that the whole 
livhig world might no more suffer the pangs of hunger. 


Having accepted alms from Adirai, as detailed above, 
Manimekhalai distributed the food in the bowl freely 
like those good peoples that distribute freely of their 



wealth, earned in the way of virtue. However much was 
taken out of it, the bowl showed itself inexhaustible and 
proved an efficient means of satisfying the hunger of 
those that came for its satisfaction. Kayasandikai, who 
was observing this, was struck with wonder, and making 
her obeisance to Manimekhalai, prayed of her, ‘ Good 
mother, be so good as to satisfy the hunger that is un- 
quenchable in me. My hunger is so great that all the 
food I take, whatever be the quantity, does as little to 
give me satisfaction as all the hills of stone brought 
and thrown into the sea by the army of monkeys in 
constructing the causeway across the sea for Rama, in 
whose form Vishnu appeared in the world as a result of 
the delusion brought on by the curse of Rishis. Do 
have mercy and destroy my hunger.’ Manimekhalai 
in response took a handful from the bowl and put it in 
her open hands. Kayasandikai, her hunger quenched, 
and therefore the consequent suffering, recounted her 
history with folded hands : ‘ I come from the north 
from the city of Kanchanapura situated in the north of 
Sedi in mount Kailasa. With the Vidyadhara, my 
husband, I came on an excursion to see the Podiyil Hill ^ 
in the south. As fates had decreed it, we stopped for^ia 
little while on the sands of a wild stream. A BrahAan, 
with the thread across his breast and his twisted IB’cks 
of hair dangling, wearing his garment of fibre, had gone 
to his bath in the cool waters of a tank someway across, 
leaving on the sands on a teak leaf a ripe jambu<&% big as’ 
a palm fruit. I walked along proudly and, not seeing* the 
fruit, tripped over it and destroyed it as a result of my 
bad deeds. •Vrischika, who returned anxious to take it 
for food, saw me thus causing destruction to his fruit, 

^ The hill of Pandya kings in Tinnevelli district in the north-west comer 
of it in the Western Ghats at the source of the River Tamraparni. 




and addressed me thus : ‘ This Jambu fruit is a divine 
one that ripens once in twelve years, and the tree yields 
but one such fruit during that long period. That fruit 
intended for my food, you have destroyed. May you for- 
get, therefore, the mantra by which you are enabled to 
travel in the air. Further may you suffer from the 
disease ‘ elephant-hunger ’ till I satisfy my hunger by 
taking the next fruit that ripens twelve years hence.’ 
The day he marked for my release from this disease 
seems to be this day now thSt you have destroyed that 
unquenchable hunger. When this Rishi had departed 
in hunger, my husband returned, and, understanding 
what had happened, was sore troubled in heart, as I had 
become subjected to this great suffering even without 
fault of my own. As I could not rise into the air with 
him when he wanted me to start, and, as all the fruit and 
food that he could bring together would not satisfy my 
hunger, he left me with great sorrow, directing me the 
while with great kindness to go to this city even after 
many days’ journey, a city which in the Tamil land in 
Jambudvlpa was a very rich one and where lived many 
people who helped those that were helpless. He comes 
here every year during the festival of Indra and parts again 
with regret counting upon his coming the next year. 
No^ you have destroyed my hunger, I make my 
obeisance to you, and shall return to my native city in 
the north. Here in this city there is a place called 
Chakravalakotta inhabited by those hermits who make 
the destnSction of suffering their business of life. There 
in that place you will find an open resting place, a work 
of charity ; it is a habitation for all those^ that suffer 
from hunger coming from all places, of those that suffer 
from disease and have no one to look after them. Many 
others there are who, expecting that there they would 



get alms, go there and live on others’ charity . Having 
said this, Kayasandikai left for the land of the Vidya- 
dharas. Manimekhalai, on the contrary, entered the 
streets of Puhar, and, walking alone along one side of it, 
entered the public rest-house, having circumambulated 
it thrice, and performed her obeisance in thought, word 
and deed to the goddess of the city, worshipped by those 
of the .city and others. Making similar obeisance to ‘ the 
statue of the pillar’ she appeared in the hall of the 
hungry and the destitute, with the inexhaustible bowl 
in her hand, as if pouring rain had come on a wild 
region burnt up with the heat of the sun. She called 
out to those there to come and receive the food from the 
inexhaustible bowl of Aputra, and thenceforward the 
hall resounded perpetually with the noise of giving and 
taking food. 


Chitrapati having heard that her grand-daughter 
Manimekhalai had assumed the dress of a nun with the 
begging bowl in her hand for begging food, and that 
she had entered the common resting place, was beside 
herself with anger. Distracted in mind she resolved 
somehow to get Manimekhalai back from this life of 
hers, and addressed the, dancing women of her caste in 
the following words ; ‘ Ever since the death of Kovalan, 
Madhavi, my daughter, has given up . life, and entering 
the hermitage of. the holy ascetics, has herself, assumed 
the form of a nun, a proceeding . which evokes the lau^ter 
of our community. We are not the people that bum 
ourselves, like chaste wives^ on the pyre of their hus- 
bands. We are like the lute of a musician ; when he 
should die we pass from his hand to another’s. Our 
profession is like that of the honey bee which sucks the 




tou^'^ i’ 

W' V 

abe»‘ *• 
the , 
yoUl* »l ‘ 

The ' 

and, ,, ‘ 
som^ , 
to £o* 'j ' 
her H"", 
that ‘ 
talk t 
resol'*^^^ I 

knovv^' , 

mad CP''' 


fort% * 
of K-'*' 
thet '' 
her ^J 
ia tbf b' 
bega> 'i” 
those#' ‘ 
puni i--( 

I out of the flower and passes on when it is 
To assume the garb of a nun, and perform 
erities of hermits, is not conduct in keeping 
istoms of our caste. I have resolved, there- 
ke Manimekhalai change her ascetic dress, 
egging bowl over to beggars, and see her 
n the car of prince Udayakumara, who has 
ime been deeply in love with her. If I should 
/ out this resolution of mine, let me share the 
se who have fallerkfrom our caste by having 
nt bricks piled upon my head, and taken 
dancing hall and cast out so as not to have 
the houses of dancing women ever after.’ 
d this, she went at the head of a few of her com- 
) the palace of the prince. Saluting him in 
and, with words of praise due from those of 
, she hinted to him how worthy of his affec- 
nekhalai was, and conveyed to him the inform- 
she had betaken herself. to the travellers’ hall 
The prince on his side, who had never lost 
f her, described how unhappy he had been 
he saw Maijimekhalai in the crystal hall and 
ir for a picture, and ended by saying that over- 
re appeared before him a golden-coloured 
ho pointing out to him what was proper con- 
jnished him to give up thoughts of Manimekha- 
:ould not understand whether it was a goddess 
inected with a goddess. Chitrapati smiled at 
Dity of the prince, and asked him whether he 
vare that the gods themselves were not free 
attractions even of illicit love, citing as ex- 
dra’s love to Ahalya and of Agni’s to the 
he seven Rishis. She pointed the moral by 
a that the guardianship of girlhood, the care- 


15 ? 

ful watch in married life, the complete abstinence from 
seeing or being seen after the death of one’s husband, and, 
overall these, the great guard that the feeling of chastity 
actually keeps over women who do not know of guards 
other than their own virtue, is not conduct imposed upon 
women of our caste. It was our profession to enter public 
halls, and the presence of all, to exhibit our skill in dancing 
and mi^^ic, and be seen by all in all the charms of our beauty. 
That is not all, ourfunction is to be so attractive as to get 
into the minds of everybody that sees us, and thus 
enslave their minds, and remain with them so long as 
they proved profitable, giving them up the moment they 
ceased to be. She concluded by enquiring whether it 
was not the duty of kings to bind such to their caste custom 
and to save them from the evil reputation that is certain 
from the conduct of both her daughter and grand-daughter. 
Thus instigated, the prince drove down to the travellers’ 
hall, and seeing Manimekhalai there distributing food, 
approached her making the enquiry what her purpose 
was in assuming the form of an ascetic. Thinking that 
it was due to him that she should make her obeisance, 
the more so as he was her husband in the previous birth, 
she made a profound obeisance, and told him, ‘birth, 
growth and decay, disease ending in death; thesf are 
the sufferings of the human body. Understanding J;his, 

I have taken it upon myself to do permanent acts of 
charity in this life. Saying this, she wanted to get 
away from him and assume another form. Shq entered 
the temple of Champapati, and reciting the iacanttftion 
which the Goddess Manimekhala had taught her, she 
assumed th^ form of Kayasandikai, and came out of the 
temple with the begging bowl in her hand. The prince 
entered the temple and enquired of the goddess 
where Manimekhalai was in hiding after- handing her 



begging bowl to Kayasandikai. He vowed that if the 
goddess would not let him know, he would lie there 
hungry till she should grant the boon. So saying he 
touched the feet of the goddess in token of his un- 
swerving resolution. 


While prince Udayakumara was thus making hjs vow, 
a being of the spirit- world inhabiting one of the pictures on 
the wall warned him, ‘ you tare thoughtless in making 
your vow before the goddess. It will come to nothing.’ 
The prince was taken aback by the miraculous voice, 
and, somewhat shaken in his resolution, said, ‘ There is 
something divine in the spiritual being that exhorted me 
to forget Manimekhalai. The bowl that she carries in 
her hand with an inexhaustible supply of food is a miracle 
that causes me great surprise ; that this painting should 
talk to me in this manner is still more surprising.’ He 
resolved that he would find out the truth of all this after 
knowing the truth about Manimekhalai. Having thus 
made up his mind, and, still beside himself with his 
love for her, he returned to his palace. 

^ Manimekhalai, on the contrary, thought that in her 
fornj^ she was exposed to the efforts of the prince to 
take* possession of her, and resolved to assume the form 
of Kayasandikai. She took the miraculous bowl from 
the temple of Champapati as Kayasandikai, and went 
from plage to place wherever she thought there was the 
chaace ofimeeting people in hunger. In the course of 
her wanderings, she went one day to the chief prison 
in. the city, and, entering the well-guarded penitentiary, 
began with great kindness and pleasing words, to feed 
those who were suffering from hunger while undergoing 
punishment. The guardsmen were struck with wonder 



that she was able to feed so many from out of one vessel 
that she carried in her hand, and reported the miraculous 
occurrence to the king. With his queen Sirtti, a 
descendant of Mahabali who ages long gone by, gifted, 
with pouring of water, the whole earth and all that was 
his, to Vishnu, when he appeared as a dwarf and sought 
a boon of him, and rising sky high, measured the whole 
earth in one stride, the king was on a visit of pleasure 
to the royal garden, and among them he found a peacock 
with its mate moving about in the company of a milk 
white swan. He pointed out the three to the queen 
likening them to Krishna, his brother and sister in their 
characteristic dance. In another place similarly he saw 
a tall bamboo standing alongside of a white Kadambu^ 
which again seemed to him like Krishna and his brother 
standing. Having thus spent a considerable time, he 
retired to a garden house where, like Indra himself, he 
was resting for a while with his queen. This house 
was a work of art in which had been lavished ‘ the skill 
of the Tamil Artisan, along with those of the jewellers 
of Magadha, of the smiths of Mahratta, of the black- 
smiths of Avan ti, and of the carpenters ofYavana’. 
The structure was constructed with pillars of corai, 
with capitals of varied jewels, with pendants of v^ite 
pearl and a beautifully worked canopy of gold. Mere 
the head of the prison-guard entered with permission 
and, performing due obeisance from a distance, 
addressed him: ‘May your Majesty live loi^! The 
Majesty of the monarch of the strong arm, Mavaniillt, 
in whose behalf the white umbrellas of his enemies were 
taken as spsils of victory by his younger brother at 
Kariyaru ; enemies who, stimulated by a desire to get 
possession of more of the earth, started from Vanji, pre- 
pared for an aggressive war, takfng with them broad eared 



elephants, cars, and horses and a vast array of valiant 
warriors. The army marched with the banners of the 
bow and the twin fish floating in the air till they were 
defeated and dispersed by the young prince, your brother. 
May our great king, our emperor, prosper. A woman 
new to the city who used to wander about consumed 
with the disease, “elephant-hunger” has entered the 
prison-house, and, praising your Majesty’s good - name, 
feeds from a begging bowl which she carries in her hand, 
all persons to their uttermost satisfaction. May it 
please your Majesty, she is still there.’ The king ordered 
her being fetched, when she appeared with the salutation 
that the great king’s mercy may prosper. The king 
desired to know who she was and what sort of a beg- 
ging bowl it was that she carried in her hand. Mani- 
mekhalai replied : ‘ I am the daughter of a Vidya- 
dhara and have been wandering in the city in disguise. 
May the rains never fail, may the earth not cease in 
prosperity, may the great king know no evil. This 
begging bowl was given to me by a goddess in the 
travellers’ hall of the city. This had the power to cure 
even the disease “elephant-hunger” and is an unfailing 
IMe-giver to human beings.’ ‘What can I do for you, 
good lady,’ asked the king. ‘ May the king live long,’ she 
replifed, ‘only destroy the prison-house, and erect there, 
in its stead, with kindness of heart, tenements useful for 
those that follow the path of Dharma' The king ordered 


By order of the king, and through the kindness of the 
beautiful damsel, Manimekhalai, what was a cruel house 
of punishment was transformed into a house of charity. 
Like those of evil deeds, "who, after undergoing suffer- 



ings due, take their birth where the good life is possible, 
the premises of the State prison were now occupied by 
a shrine for the teacher of the truth, residential rooms for 
those that practise charity, halls for cooking and dining, 
provided with everything required for living and security. 
Uoa]^ akumara heard of all that took place resulting in 
this transformation. He still held to his resolution to 
take pQssession of Manimekhalai when she should be 
out of the hall of guests, and then learn from her direct- 
ly the secret of her art and vv^hatever of wisdom she may 
have to impart to him while she should be in his chariot. 
With his mind thus set, in spite of the fact that the wise 
might disapprove and the king might get angry, he 
reached the guests house where Manimekhalai used to 
be^ distributing food. About that time, the Vidy^hara 
Kanchana, husband of Kayasandikai noted that the day 
of redemption for his wife had already arrived, and, 
seeing that his wife did not yet return to him, he started 
in search of her. Having looked in vain for her in all 
the likely places of the vast city, he at last found her in 
the act of feeding those that were hungry. He approach- 
ed her, and assuming the familiarity of the husband to 
the wife, asked with a sense of grateful relief whether the 
one vessel from which she was providing food •for 
such a vast number was a miraculous bowl that sdme 
God, out of pity for her, presented to her to get rid of 
her great suffering. Even though she was in the guise 
of Kayasandikai, Manimekhalai, without exhibiting any 
affectionate response that he expected, passed on to 
where Udayakumara was, and, pointing to him a woman of 
extreme old age, who apparently was a woman of beauty 
in her days, exhorted him that that was the inevitable con- 
dition all beautiful women should come to ultimately. 
This human body, however beattifully it may be made 
21 ^ . 



by the form of the flesh, by dress, jewellery, flowers and 
unguents, it is all a delusion created by people of old. 
Kanchana seeing the intimacy of her attitude and con- 
versation to Udayakumara took it that she was in love 
with the prince and had therefore abandoned him. Angry 
that Udayakumara should have been the cause of her 
estrangement, and resolving to make sure, he entered the 
hall, like a poisonous cobra its hole. Udayakumarjikonthe 
contrary, his affection for Manimekhalai not abated by 
all that was said, did not give up his pursuit of love to 
her, feeling certain that it was she that had assumed the 
form of Kayasandikai and had caused misunderstand- 
ing in the Vidyadhara Kanchana. He resolved there- 
fore to return to the hall at dead of night to probe more 
into the matter and assure himself whether he was 
right. Still overborne with his love to her and being 
guided by that feeling alone to the neglect of all other 
cautious considerations, he left his palace at dead of 
night, like a tiger going out for its prey and entered the 
hall as he projected. The Vidyadhara who was there 
already, feeling sure that the prince had come there to 
visit his wife Kayasandikai secretly, like an angry cobra 
aoming out to attack with outspread hood, drew his 
sw6rd and cut the prince in two. Having done this, he 
ruslied up to Kayasandikai to rise up into the air with 
her when the statuette on the pillar exclaimed ; ‘Vid- 
yadhara, approach not, approach not. She is Manime- 
khalai in disuise as Kayasandikai. Listen to what had 
happened to the latter. Having got rid of her unquen- 
chable hunger, on rising up in the air towards her home, 
not knowing the fact that those that go by ^ the air avoid 
crossing over that part of the Vindhyas where is the 
shrine of the Goddess Vindhyavasini, she floated across 
over the shrine. Goddess Durga, angry that this insult 



should have been offered to her, drew her in by the 
shadow and made a meal of her as has always been usual. 
Be not vexed with what you have done to this prince. 
It is his past deeds that have resulted in this. Yet you 
must bear the consequences of the evil deed although 
done in ignorance- ’ Sad at heart at the turn that events 
took, Kanchana flew across the air homewards towards 


Manimekhalai who was lying asleep in the front hall 
of Champapati’s temple to the west, woke up in fear, and 
knowing what the Vidyadhara did, what befell the prince 
and what the divine statuette had said, gave up her 
disguise and assumed her real form. ‘ When in our 
previous birth, you died of the cobra Dhrishti Viska, I 
entered the fire along with you ; when last I saw you in 
the pleasure garden in this city, goddess Manimekhala 
carried me away to Manipallavam, seeing that my mind 
was attracted to you. There by means of the miraculous 
Buddha-seat at Manipallavam the goddess gave me 
knowledge of our previous births and relationship. As 
I understood your relationship to me, I cherishe'3 
affection for you even in this life. I wished to exiiort 
you from the evils of life by pointing out the inevitable 
cycle of births and deaths, and of the consequences of 
good and bad deeds. I assumed the form of Kayasandi- 
kai 'to keep you from doing evil. My evil fate ft is that 
you should have thus fallen by the sword of tfie Vidya- 
dhara.’ So saying she approached the dead body of 
the prince. ’The statuette on the pillar again forbade 
her from approaching and told her : ‘ It is not in the 
previous life alone that you both were husband and wife. 
Such has been your relationship for innumerable lives 




before. You have the knowledge to get rid of this cycle 
of birth and death. Be not vexed with this occurrence 
and give yourself up to sorrow for his death.’ Manime- 
khalai, somewhat encouraged by the words of the god, 
enquired if that was the god that people used to say was 
there in the hall, who told everybody the truth of things. 
‘ If that be you, I make reverence unto you. If you do 
know, as I take it you do, what it was that brought about 
the death of my husband by the poisonous cobra in the 
previous birth and the swor<f of the Vidyadharain this, 
pray let me know what it was.’ The god replied: 
‘ When on the banks of the river Kayamkarai both you 
and your husband Rahula entertained the Rishi Bhrama- 
dharma who was on his round of preaching wisdom to 
people and who made it a point of his teaching to convey 
information regarding the coming of the Buddha, both 
of you together invited the Riski for breakfast. Your 
husband gave orders to the cook to get breakfast ready 
early the next morning. The cook delayed somewhat 
owing to circumstances beyond his control and in fear of 
consequences slipped and fell, dropping the cooking 
vessel itself. Even in spite of his good intentions your 
Ivusband cut him in two for the fault of having delayed 
the breakfast. It is as a direct consequence of this that 
Udayakumara suffered death in the previous birth and 
in this, in the manner in which it occurred. Be sure that 
the consequences of a man’s deeds are inevitable. 
Those that say “ god will protect you from the evil conse- 
quences of your deeds”, are people that speak in 
ignorance. Even though your husband did the cruel 
deed in anxiety to do good, the result of the evil deed 
has not left him. When the consequences of the evil 
deed are in operation, it may still be possible to do good 
that will save one in the next life. The king hearing 



of the death of the prince from the Rishis resident in 
Chakravalakotta will throw you into prison, and the 
crowned queen knowing this will take you out of the 
prison and keep you under her control. The prayer of 
your mother Madhavi and the intercession of the sage 
Aravana Adigal will ultimately gain for you release. 
After that you will reach Savaham, and there meeting 
its ruler, Aputra, will come back to Manipallavam. 
Aputra will learn there, by the sight of the Buddha-seat, 
his anterior history from T-Iva-Tilakai, and will return 
to his country. You will then assume the guise of a 
mendicant and go to the city of Vanji to learn from 
teachers of various religious persuasions their teaching. 
You may hold to the truth firmly that the result of 
deeds is inevitable and those that die must necessarily 
be born again. So far is your story. If you wish to 
know mine, I am of the gods. My name is Tuvadikan, 
Maya, the architect has carved in this old pillar a form 
exactly like mine. I never go out of it.’ Manimekhalai 
then begged him to tell her her further history carrying 
it forward to her death. The god told her : ‘You 
will come to learn at Vanji that the city of Kanchi 
suffered from famine owing to failure of rain, and that 
your mother Madhavi, her companion Sutamati, ‘and 
the teacher Aravana Adigal were all three gon8 to 
that city and were awaiting your arrival. You would 
then proceed to Kanchi and provide the starving 
people with food and save them from dealdi. You 
would perform similarly many, another miracle in that 
city. Ultimately you will let Aravana Adigal know all 
Ihat you have heard from the teachers of religion at Vanji. 
He will then teach you what tapas really is and dharma^ 
and what the nature of the consequential phenomena are. 
He would also point out to you how to g*et rid of the 



consequences of action. By these means he would 
enlighten you to get rid of the darkness of evil and of 
the attainment of the permanent state of NirvmM. -Thus 
teaching the dharma, he would continue to live with 
immeasurable riddhi (miraculous power) till the Buddha 
should appear oh earth. Passing through many lives, he 
would always be teaching the dharma. As a result of his 
teaching, you will follow the good path through tfee rest 
of your life doing many good deeds. After death, here 
at Kanchi, you will be born itiany times again as a man in 
Uttara (North) Magadha. In each one of these births, you 
will invariably follow the path of dharma, and, attaining 
to the position of the first disciple of the Buddha, reach 
Nirvana ultimately. Further you may note that as a 
result of good conduct and acts of charity of one of your 
ancestors. Goddess Manimekhala saved him from immi- 
nent death in the sea. That self-same goddess, because 
of the merit that you acquired by feeding ih.^ Ris hi 
Sadusakkaran, carried you away from the pleasure garden 
to the island of Manipallavam, and made it possible for 
you to see the Buddha-seat.’ Having heard all this 
Manimekhalai attained to peace of mind, and the day 
bl'oke in all its glorious effulgence. 


The day having dawned early worshippers at the 
temple of Champapati found the prince there cut in two, 
andpinfoftned the holy ones in residence at the Chakra- 
valakbttam. They naturally enquired of Mapimekhalai if 
she knew anything about it, and she recounted all that 
had taken place. Leaving her and the remains of the 
prince hidden in a place apart, they went to the palace 
and sent word to the king of their arrival. Obtaining 
audience, one of them, affer the usual salutation, said, ‘ It 



is not at this time alone that such sad occurrences have 
happened. Many have suffered cruel death due to them 
to the impulses of guilty love to women of 
inexorable chastity and constancy. By way of illustra- 
tion, we may mention one or two. When Parasurama 
had taken it upon himself to uproot the race of the 
Kshatriyas, Goddess Durga warned Kantan, the ruling 
Chola at the time, that he should not go to war against 
him. As a result of the warning, the king wished to go 
away from the capital anci live in hiding till the danger 
should have passed. He, therefore, looked out for some 
one who could be entrusted with the administration during 
his absence and who would not be in the same danger to 
which he was actually exposed. Fixing upon his 
natural son Kakandan, the son of a courtesan, but withal 
a very valiant prince, he entrusted him with the adminis- 
tration. He exhorted him to keep watch over the city 
till he should himself return with the permission of Rishi 
Agastya. “ Since you are not legitimately entitled to 
rule as a Chola, Parasurama will not go to war with you, 
and, since this city has been placed under your rule in 
this emergency, the city shall hereafter go by the name 
Kakandi.” Having thus enjoined it upon Kakandas, 
Kantan assumed a disguise and went out of the city. 
Kakandan carried out the instructions of his fatherland 
was ruling, from the city, the Chola kingdom. The 
younger of his two sons was struck with the attractiveness 
of a Brahman woman Marudi as she was retumuig alone 
from her bath in the river Kaveri. He made •overtures 
of love to her when she was in that unguarded condition. 
Disconcerted by this unsuspected molestation, she cried 
out that “ in this world chaste wives that could command 
even the rains to come, would not enter the hearts of 
others. Somehow to-day, my fwmhas found entry in the 



heart of this young man. I have, therefore, become unfit 
to do the service of preserving the three kinds of fii-e for 
my husband the Brahman. What is it that I have done to 
come to this.’’ So saying, without returning to her house 
as usual, she walked up the street to the square where 
was set the statue of the guardian-deity of the city. She 
then addressed the deity : “ I am not aware of having at 

any time done anything undutiful to my husband. 
Even so, how could I so easily get into the heart of 
another ? I am not aware ofi, any error on my part that 
could have brought me to this. I have heard from the 
wise that you will bind with your rope those of evil deeds, 
even though they should do them secretly, and, destroy- 
ing them, would eat them up. Have you become false 
to your charge as you do not appear to be doing that act 
of justice now ? ” So saying, she wept aloud at the foot of 
the statue of the guardian-deity. The deity appeared to 
her and said: “You have not understood properly the 
meaning of that particular passage of the truthful bard,' 
which says that the clouds will rain at command 
of her who, even though failing to worship God, would 
take up her day’s duties only after worshipping her 
husband. You are accustomed in life to hear false 
stories, and have exhibited a turn for the enjoyment of 
the ludicrous. Further your devotion to Gods and their 
worship had in it a desire to hear music, to see dances 
and otherwise enjoy the festivities. Therefore it is the 
chaste wife that you are, you have not the power to 
commandr clouds to rain, and therefore it is that you have 
failed to burn the hearts of those who cherish evil 
thoughts of you. If you will but give 4.p the light- 
hearted enjoyment of the things cited above, you will 

TiruvaUuvar, the author ol the Tamil Kural referring to verse ^5. 



still command the respect due to the chaste wife and her 
privileges. Since you are not to blame for this act of the 
prince^ my rope will not bind you, and my weapons will 
not punish you as in the case of women that go the way 
of their hearts. The law allows seven days’ time for 
the king to punish an offender. Before that limit of 
time, if he should fail to do so, then it would be my turn 
to inflict the punishment. You may rest assured that 
within the seven days’ limit king Kakanda hearing of 
what had happened will deq^pitate the prince.’ As the 
deity declared the prince was cut into two by the king 
himself when he had heard of the prince’s misdeed 
towards the Brahman woman. That is not all. There 
was a merchant in good old days in the city, a man of 
beauty and of wealth, by name Dharmadatta. He had a 
cousin, the daughter of his maternal uncle, by name 
Visakai, a damsel of great beauty. Being cousins they 
cherished great affection for each other, and conducted 
themselves as becoming a pair of very affectionate young 
people. It somehow got abroad in the city that they 
intended to marry each other in the gandharva form, 
that is, enter into a love marriage, without the procras- 
tinating ceremonies and the obstructive formalities of ^ 
regular marriage. This talk of the town reached ^the 
ears of Visakai. Feeling pained at the injustice, .she 
went u*p to the guests’ hall before ‘ the statue on the 
pillar ’ and demanded the statue may get her rid of 
this calumny. The deity of the statuette announced to 
the public that she was clear of any guilt, (^ithei* of 
intention or of act, and the city was apparently satisfied. 
She, however, was not, and thought within herself that 
but for this deity of the statuette the people would still 
have cherished the false notion regarding her. She 
therefore resolved, ‘ I shall marjy my cousin in my next 



birth, but continue to live all my life in this, unmarried.’ 
Communicating this resolution of hers to her mother, she 
entered the cloister of virgins. Love-lorn Dharmadatta 
praised ‘ the statue of the pillar ’ for thus saving him from 
an evil reputation and removed himself from Kaveri- 
pattinam, and went to Madura. Having there made up 
his mind not to marry anybody other than Visakai, he 
kept the vow and continued a prosperous merchant 
acquiring great wealth. He rose up to the dignity of 
receiving titles and insignfa from the monarch thus 
becoming a titled dignitary of sixty years. A Brahman 
pointed out to him, that, being unmarried and therefore 
without a son, all his good deeds and great wealth would 
be of no avail, to gain him Heaven. ‘ It is time that you 
returned to your own native city and did something to 
provide for your future.’ Having heard of his return to 
Kaveripattinam, Visakai gave up the cloister and coming 
up to him, told him that he had grown up to be sixty, 
and her hair had begun to turn gray. Their beauty was 
all gone, and her love itself had cooled. ‘ I keep to my 
resolve not to marry in this life, but shall certainly be 
your wife in the next. Youth does not last, beauty does 
jjot last, growing great in wealth does not last either ; 
nor.^0 children give Heaven. The only thing that goes 
with us is the great good that we can do in this life.’ So 
saying, she exhorted him to utilize his wealth in acts of 
charity. Dharmadatta with the approval of Visakai 
thereafter applied his wealth to acts of beneficence. 

when Visakai was returning with others through the 
royal streets of Puhar after her visit to the guests’ hall, 
the elder of the two princes smitten with | charming 
looks wished to make her his own. In order to do this 
effectively and publicly he raised his hand up to his head 
to take out a^arland of flowers that he was wearing round 



his hair to drop it on her neck and thus publicly commit 
her as it were. By the ineffable chastity of Visakai, how- 
ever, .the hands that he raised would not come down 
again. Having heard of this, the father was very angry 
at this misconduct of his son, and punished him in the 
same manner as he had punished the other. The king 
in some surprise pointed out to the sage that he began 
by saying that it was not only at this time that such 
things took place. ‘If so,’ he said, ‘does such evil conduct 
occur at this time. Have the kindness to let me know 
if such has come to your notice.’ The sage replied : 
‘ In this sea-girt earth, five things have been condemned 
by the really wise. Among these, drink, untruth, theft 
and murder can be brought under control, but, worst of 
all and very difficult to get rid of, was passion. Those 
that got rid of passion are rightly taken to have got 
rid of the others. Hence it is that really penitent 
ones first give up that. O, great king, those that have 
not given it up are people who have ensured suffering in 
hell. So having heard of the calamitous death of her 
lover Kovalan, Madhavi his mistress gave up life, and 
entered the cloister of Buddhist hermits. Her daughter 
Manimekhalai, at the approach of youth, gave up life gd 
the very beginning and going from house to house,, the 
small as well as the great, had taken upon herself the»role 
of a mendicant nun. She took up her residence in the 
public hall of the city. Notwithstanding this manner of 
her life, the prince kept following her like a shadow, in- 
stigated to that purpose by his extreme, love tocher. * As 
he was thus pursuing her, Manimekhalai assumed the form 
of the .Vidy^hara woman Kaya&ndikai to get rid of his 
importunity. Even in thatiorm.he did not. give her peace, 
when Vidyadhara Kanchana, the husband of Kayasandikai 
taking her really for his wife and regarding him as an 



importunate corruptor of his wife, cut him in two at dead 
of night in the guests’ hall.’ Having heard this the 
king, without the slightest expression of sorrow f(jr the 
death of his son, issued instructions to the commander- 
in-chief, ‘ the Vidyadhara deserves my thanks for having 
done to the erring prince what I should have done to him. 
The rigid observances of Rishis and the chastity of good 
women will have no chance of existence if they, do not 
receive efficient protection from the king. Before other 
kings get to know that my unfortunate son was guilty of 
such an act, coming as I do of the family of him who 
drove his car over the body of his son, because of a 
neglectful act of his, order the cremation of the dead 
body. Let Manimekhalai also be kept in prison for 
protection.’ The orders wei'e accordingly carried out. 


Under the auspices of the king there lived in the city a 
very old woman who had the privilege of instructing the 
king, the prince, as well as the ladies of the royal house- 
hold in what was good, what was approved of the learned, 
and of offering consolation at the occurrence of sad events. 
Her name was Vasantavai. She went to the queen and 
without letting her give way to sorrow, made the usual 
salutations and said:—* Kings met their death ia win- 
ning victories, in protecting their subjects and in annexing 
the kingdoms of inimically disposed neighbours ; and, 
if perchance they died of age without falling in battle 
like' warriors, they were given a hero’s death by their 
body being laid on a bed of sacrificial grass {Poa 
cynosuvoides) and cut in two, as though they fell in 
battle. I cannot fetch a tongue to say that monarchs of 
this land died a natural death by reaching ripe old age. 
To say so w'Ould be to disgrace the dynasty. Without 

BOOK xxiir 


falling in defending his kingdom, without falling in 
taking over other’s kingdoms, how can I describe the 
way that your son fell by the sword ? Show, therefore, 
no sorrow in the presence of the sovereign, your husband.’ 
Overpowered as the queen was with sorrow, she hid it 
in her heart, and appearing as though unaffected, she 
resolved to make Manimekhalai pay the penalty for her 
having been the cause of her son’s death. She managed 
one day to persuade the king that the prison house 
was not a suitable place -of residence for the pretty 
Manimekhalai. The king in reply said that she 
might arrange to keep her anywhere else if she could 
keep her in security. The queen undertook to keep her 
with herself and thus took charge of her. Having got pos- 
session of her in this manner she resolved to make her in- 
sane, and to that end fumigated her with poison gas in vain. 
Manimekhalai remained clear in spite of the treatment. 
The queen set upon her a wild young man to ravish 
her and make it public afterwards. Manimekhalai 
saved herself from this by transforming herself into 
a man at his approach. Understanding that the queen 
meant more than actually met his eye, the desparate 
young man left the city and went away rather 
than expose himself to the danger. Having failed in 
these, «he gave it out that Mariimekhalai was ill and* put 
her under treatment by confining her in a hot room. 
Seeing that this treatment did not affect Manimekhalai 
the queen was in great fear that she was attempting to 
injure a woman of miraculous power, and protested that 
she was led into doing these evil deeds by the maternal 
impulses of* sorrow for her late son, and begged that 
Manimekhalai might pardon her for her evil intention to 
her, as she was beside herself in her bereavement. 
Manimekhalai said in reply ‘ when in the previous birth 



my husband, prince Rahula, died of the poison of a 
cobra and when I ascended the funeral pyre with him, 
where were you all weeping for him? You are #doing 
amiss. Do you weep for your son’s body or do you 
weep for his life ? If you weep for the body who was it 
that ordered it to be burnt? If you weep for the life, it 
is impossible for you to know where it has gone. If 
you really are sorry for that life, it follows as a.natural 
consequence that you should wear yourself out in sorrow 
for all living beings. Let that remain. Please under- 
stand what it is that brought about the death of your son? 
His death by the sword of the Vidyadhara is but the 
direct consequence of his having cut his own cook in 
two for a slight remissness in the discharge of his duty. 
It is this deed of his that brought on his death once by 
the look of the poisonous cobra, and again by the sword 
of the Vidyadhara ’ ! She then followed it up by telling 
the queen of all that had happened ever since she got 
into the garden outside the city. She then continued, 

‘ All the evil that you attempted to do to me, I was able 
to save myself from by the possession of miraculous 
power. Therefore give up the useless sorrow to which 
you have given way to the extent of doing evil deeds. 
Ha\«e you not heard the story of the wife of an artisan, 
who* because of misrule in the kingdom and because 
her husband gave her up, went away to a distant place 
to set herself up to live by hiring herself out for the 
enjoymeEt of others indiscriminately. Her own child 
whom sh5 had left behind having been brought up by a 
Brahman was among her lovers and gave up his life 
when he learned of the fact. A hunter who chased a 
deer big with young was reduced to painful sorrow when 
he saw the young one jump out from the ripped open 
entrails of the deer. You have known people who. 



being drunk, come to certain death by falling upon the 
tusks of fighting elephants. Similarly you have seen 
the evil fate that overtakes life by falsehood or theft. 
Hence it becomes plain that those that wish to live in 
this world must give up these vices which bring on 
evil consequences only. Otherwise all that we learn is 
of no use. To give to those that suffer from poverty, 
to feed those that suffer from hunger, to be kind to those 
that su&er is the only conduct suitable to those who 
wish to lead a good life in ^this world. ’ Thus saying 
Manimekhalai poured this water of wisdom into the ear 
of the queen extinguishing the fire of sorrow, that, fed 
by the fuel of her own heart, was burning up the queen’s 
mind. The queen, her mind being clarified by this 
good teaching, fell prostrate before Manimekhalai. 
Manimekhalai in her turn prostrated before her and 
pointed out that which the queen did was not right, as 
obeisance from a mother-in-law to the daughter-in-law 
was improper, and, what was worse, that from the crown- 
ed queen to a subject. 


Old Chitrapati, at whose instigation the prince came 
to the sad end of falling by the sword of the Vidyadhara, 
having heard of what had happened, was in great ajarm 
as to consequences. Anxious however to get Manime- 
khalai released from the prison, she went to the palace, 
and, falling at the feet of the queen said ; ‘ Ever since 
the I2I dancing women appeared in this j::ity, •the 
suffering to which I had been subjected nbbody could 
have experiejiced. That Madhavi should have renounced 
life and entered a Buddhist vihara because of the death 
of her lover, who paid her wages of love every day ; that 
her daughter Manimekhalai vtho , wandered from house 



to house with a begging-bowl in her hand and taken 
alms, are unbecoming of the life of a dancing women, 
and could provoke only laughter and derision in the 
community. Manimekhalai’s presence in the city has 
been the cause of destruction to the prince already. But 
that is not all. There is another possible calamity that 
can befall the city through her. In the delightful part 
adjoining the salt pans where many a sand-dune lay 
scattered in the pleasant grove, Killi of the high and 
brilliant crown one day long ago was taking his pleasure. 
To his great surprise, he saw in a sequestered part of it, 
fragrant with blossoming flowers, a beauty unparalleled, 
all by herself alone. The king did not know who it 
was that could come there in that condition, and 
forgetting himself, yielded to her charms attacked as he 
was with all the five arrows' of Cupid at once. 
The season was pleasant, the scene was delightful, 
and the young lady enchanting in her beauty. He 
yielded himself to her whole-heartedly, and even after 
he spent a month with her she never so much as 
let him know who she was. At the end of the month, 
however, she left him all of a sudden unknown to 
him. Disconcerted by her disappearance the victorious 
monarch caused her to be searched for everywhere ; when 
there appeared a Buddhist Charana who had the power 
of plunging in the earth, of flying in the air, *and of 
walking on water. The king after having offered the 
usual respectful salutation, enquired of him whether he 
had'-knowji anything of the dear one that had disappear- 
ed all of a sudden, and was importunate to know from 
the sage her whereabouts. The sag^e replied : 

^ According to Indian notions Ctipid shewn as a bowman, carrying a 
bow of sugarcane from which he shoots arrows of flowers-— the five fragrant 
ones that appear jp. early spring, ^ 



“ Though I have not seen her, I know all about her, O 
King, as I have knowledge of the past. The charming 
damsgl is no other than Pilivalai, the daughter of 
Vasamayilai, and her husband Valaivanan, the valiant 
ruler of Naga Nadu. On the day of her birth it was 
predicted that she would become the mother of a son by 
union with a ruler of the solar dynasty of kings. The 
child lyill come here in due course, but no more the 
mother. Do not, therefore, give way to useless sorrow. 
But take note of this. There is a curse upon this city 
that it would be swallowed up by the sea on the day that 
the annual festival of Indra should be forgotten. This 
is the vow of the goddess Manimekhala ; there is no 
escaping it, as it is a curse of Indra. Remembering 
therefore the destruction of the city then when the time 
comes, and, of yours now, if you give way to useless 
sorrow, save the city from being destroyed by the sea by 
taking care never to forget the celebration of the festival 
of Indra.” So saying, the Su.rana (Tam. : for Charana) 
left. From that day onwards this city was never free 
from anxiety for the safety of the city. If the damsel 
who bears her name should be in distress for any 
reason, it is just possible that the goddess does appeas. 
I am in constant fear of that.’ Chitrapati conclude(^ her 
speedy with the salutation due. The queen ordered 
that Manimekhalai be brought from the prison to her 
own residence, and told Chitrapati, ‘ Manimekhalai will 
not go to you, nor will she enter your housg, as she 
gave up both, because your life involves th« praiStice 
of taking drink, speaking untruth, indulging in unres- 
trained love, killing living beings, and indulging in 
stealthy thoughts, evils that the wise ones have shunned 
as unworthy. Therefore she would prefer to be with 
me.’ • • 




As this colloquy was taking place at the palace, 
Madhavi, having heard of what had fallen her daughter, 
her own mind greatly perturbed, her whole body shaken 
like the flowering twig of a tree in a wild wind, and 
having consulted Sutamati, fell prostrate before the 
sage Aravana Adigal as the only saviour, and came 
along with him to the queen. At sight of the sage, 
the queen, the body of attendants, Chitrapati and Mani- 
mekhalai, all of them, went forward to receive the 
venerable one with due salutation. The sage blessed 
them all that they might gain wisdom. The good queen 
showed him a suitable seat, and after washing his feet, 
and offering him the hospitality due, said : — ‘ Venerable 
Sir, that you should have come with the faltering steps 
of age, could be due only to our good fortune. While it 
is undoubtedly true that your tongue has remained steady 
all the while, may this body of yours, though it has 
suffered very much from the ravages of age, keep on for 
many a year to come.’ ‘ Good queen,’ said the sage in 
reply, ‘though born in this body as a result of good 
deeds, I am still rather like the setting sun. It is but in 
the course of nature that we hear of birth and growth, of 
disease and death. If people but understand the real 
char^acter of the causes and conditions of existence, 
nan^ly the twelve nidanas, (i) ignorance, (2) ^action 
of the mind, (3) consciousness, (4) name and form, 
(5) the organs of sense, (6) contact or feeling, (7) sen- 
sation, /8) thirst, (9) attachment, (10) becoming or 
existence, (ii) birth, (12) decay and death, they will 
know ultimate happiness. If they do not understand it 
correctly, they are doomed to suffer in hell.^ By ignor- 
ance is to be understood the failure to understand what 
was stated above, and subjecting oneself to believing 
that which is heard from others. Among the three 




worlds, this world of life is limitless, and living beings in 
this world fall into six classes, human beings, divine 
beings, the Brahmas, the Nagas, the world of lower 
creatures, and that of evil spirits. As a result of good 
and bad deeds, beings come into existence in the form 
of embryo in one or other of these classes, and when the 
deeds work themselves out, they feel either happiness or 
the reverse. Evil deeds consist in killing, stealing and 
giving way to passion, these three showing themselves 
in the body. Lying, evil-speaking, harsh words and 
idle words, these four show themselves in speech- 
Desire, anger and intolerence show themselves in the 
mind. These ten are the deeds of evil, and, as their 
consequences are evil, the wise ones shun them. If these 
are not avoided carefully, the result is being born as an 
animal or evil spirit or an inhabitant of Hell, and suffer 
that which gives agony of mind. Good deeds consist 
in the avoidance of the ten evils detailed above, the 
adopting of the five prescribed lines of conduct and 
making gifts of charity as the best action in life. Those 
that do so are born either as divine beings or as human 
beings or among the Brahmas, and enjoy the result of 
their good action. Those of you that are attendants 
upon the queen, listen with attention to this fau^iless 
good pharma ; you Manimekhalai that know your^pre- 
vious birth already, if you will go to me after learning 
the teachings of other religions, I shall be glad to ex- 
plain to you more of this.’ So saying the venerable one 
got up to leave when Manimekhalai made a» profound 
obeisance and eJchorted the queen, her attendants and 
Ghitrapati to bear in mind the teachings of the venerable 
one and save this city. ‘ If I should continue to remain 
in the city, people would still talk of me as having been 
death to the prince. Therefote I shall proceed to the 





kingdom of Aputra and therefrom to Manipallavam 
where I shall again offer worship at the Buddha-seat and 
then proceed to Vanji. There I shall spend som^ time 
in doing deeds of charity in devotion to the chaste one 
Kannaki. Do not be anxious as to what would happen 
to me, my friends.’ Having said this and made her pro- 
found obeisance to the company, she started up in the 
air like a stream of molten gold, as the sun was sinking 
below the horizon. Going to the Chakravalakottam, 
she circumambulated three times the guests ’ hall, the 
temple of Champapati, and the statue on the pillar and 
passed by way of air to where ‘ the descendant of Indra ’ 
(Aputra) was holding rule. Getting down in a grove 
of flowering trees, she, with due reverence, enquired of a 
hermit the name of the place and that of the ruler of the 
locality. She was told that the city was Nagapura, and 
its ruler Punyaraja, the son of Bhumichandra. He fur- 
ther offered the information that ‘ since the birth of this 
ruler, rains have never failed, earth and trees have 
always yielded plenty, and living beings have had no taste 
of wasting diseases.’ 


In ithe meanwhile King Puriyaraja himself with his 
queen and following entered the grove and paid his 
respects to the Dharma Sravaka. He listened to the 
exposition by the latter of the nature of Dharma and its 
opposite, of that which is eternal and those that are not, 
sorraw and its causes, the passing of life after death and 
the place which it reaches, the causes and conditions of 
existence, how to get rid of these and the nature of the 
teacher (Buddha), with great attention. Noticing in the 
company a young woman of unparalleled beauty, and, 
judging by her look and, the begging bowl in her hand. 



that she was one of those on whom Cupid had no 
influence, he enquired who the rare being was. In reply 
to thg enquiry, the king’s chamberlain said : ‘ In the 
whole of India (Jambudvipa) there is not another like this 
young lady. I learned all about her when, for securing 
the friendship of king Killi, I sailed across to Kaveri- 
pattinam, a city which has the river flowing on one side. 

I did explain to your Majesty on my return what I had 
myself learned from sage Aravana Adigal in regard to 
her birth, and he recountedit as one who had knowledge 
of it. This is the same young lady who has come here 
from Kaveripattinam.’ Manimekhalai, hearing this said, 

‘ You have forgotten that it was your begging-bowl that 
has come to my hand, perhaps of your great wealth 
and prosperity now in this life of yours. It may be 
natural that you have forgotten that previous life ; 
but how is it that you have forgotten this very life in 
which you came to birth of a cow. It is impossible for 
you to learn, you will not understand the nature of birth 
that binds us to our existence here, unless you circum- 
ambulate thrice the Buddha-seat in the island of Mani- 
pallavam. Oh, king, please go over there.’ So 
addressing the king, she rose into the air and, before the 
setting of the sun, she came down to the earth on the 
island^ of Manipallavam, and saw there, after going rpund 
the little island, the Buddha-seat. Walking round it by 
the right and prostrating before it, she understood all 
that took place in her previous existence. Mapimekhalai 
recounted, while in this act of worship of the iseat,, what 
the sage Sadhu ^akkara taught when the king of Gandhara 
took leave qf him on the banks of the Kayarnkarai. The 
sage taught his followers to avoid evil deeds which 
inevitably would give them birth among animals, the 
people of the nether world and,evil spirits- He pointed 



out that, if they should do so, they would take their 
birth among the gods, or men or among the Brahmas. 
On attaining such birth, they should do good deed%only, 
without remissness. The enlightened one who had learnt 
the truth of things without delusion or falsehood will 
take birth in the world for saving it. It is only those 
that have the good fortune to hear his teaching from him 
that can get rid of birth. Therefore you exhorted 
‘ before inevitable death comes to you pursue the way of 
charity by leading a goodjife.’ When however my 
husband and myself, having heard this teaching of yours 
and made a profound obeisance to you, you spoke to us 
only words boding evil. May I know why before the 
advent of the enlightened one this miraculous seat was 
placed here by Indra for him ? Why should this exalted 
seat of the enlightened one let me know my previous 
birth ? To this the guardian deity of the island said in 
reply: ‘This seat will accept nobody other than the 
fully enlightened one ; Indra will not worship it. 
Therefore Indra commanded that the seat of good might 
let those that worship it know their previous birth till 
the enlightened one should occupy it. Therefore it is 
that the seat exhibits to those that worship it their 
previous lives clearly.’ So said the deity that day, and 
I feej as though she is saying it to me now.’ So paying, 
she went round the seat and prostrated before it. 

While she was thus engaged in Manipallavam, the 
king returned from the hermitage of the sage to the palace. 
Leaftiing .from his mother Amarasundari the actual 
nature of this birth of his, and how he came to be the 
occupant of the throne of Savakam, he tjpcame very 
much ^ humiliated with sorrow , at what happened to him 
in the previous birth when his mother left him by the 
road-side in aomparison .with what his distinguished 




position in the present life was. He observed that much 
the best thing for him to do would be to renounce life 
giving^ up all his present splendour; when kings awaited 
his time to see him ; when he had to gather round him 
good men and true ; when he had to spend more of his 
time in seeing lovely artists dance or in hearing musi- 
cians sing ; when, instead of giving up love when women 
showed^themselves irresponsive, he had to make protesta- 
tions of love in various ways to them, ail the while being 
a slave of passion. He congratulated himself that this 
teaching which the holy Sravaka first taught him was 
then coming to fruit by means of Manimekhalai. On 
hearing these reflections from the king, the chief minister, 
Janamitra, seeing that the king’s mind was undergoing 
a transformation, said : ‘ Remember, O great monarch ! 
that before my former sovereign and yours, obtained you 
for a son by favour of the holy one, this land of ours had 
suffered for twelve years from failure of rain, and of famine 
of such severity in consequence, that the very mothers 
would sooner eat their children to appease their own 
hunger than feed them, and in such dire distress you ap- 
peared as a welcome rain-cloud in the worst of summer. 
Since then never have rains failed, nor land its fertility,; 
living beings have never known hunger. If you should 
give up rule and retire, all of your subjects will weep^ as a 
child at the death of the mother. If, for the sake of life 
in a higher world, you choose to give up this, living 
beings here will reach their end and you will be held 
responsible for the calamity. This is not th^ teaching 
of Him, the first one, who unmindful of his own life, 
made ithis,duty to protect living beings. You are ap- 
parently labouring under some delusion.’ Hearing this, 
the king, not being able to resist the desire to go and 
worship the Buddha-seat at l^anipallavatn, begged his 



minister to bear the responsibility for a month, of pro- 
tecting his kingdom and conducting its administration. 
So saying he ordered sailors to get ready ship.^ at the 
harbour and embarked. The convoy had an uninterrupt- 
ed voyage till it reached Manipallavam. Manimekhalai 
seeing that that was the fleet that brought the king, took 
the king round and showed him the miraculous Buddha- 
seat. The seat showed to the king, as if in, a clear 
mirror, his anterior history. The king proclaimed with 
joy, ‘ I have learned all of my previous birth ; I have rid 
myself of all that was evil. Oh, the Goddess of Learn- 
ing at southern Madura, the home of Tamil, was it not 
you that offered me the inexhaustible bowl when at dead 
of night and in pouring rain, I was in great sorrow at 
not being able to give food to those that sought it of me ; ' 
and was it not you, the Divine One ! that destroyed my 
birth? Whether I should be born among the gods or in 
the Brahma world, I shall never give up the maintenance 
and protection of living beings.’ So saying, he went 
south-east along with Manimekhalai, and the two rested 
for a while on the bank of the tank Gomukhi. There 
then appeared before them the Goddess of the Isle and 
a,ddressed the king in the following words : ‘ Oh, king, 
who^ relieved the pangs of hunger, those that had for- 
gotten you when last you came here* returned her^ after- 
wards in search of you ; knowing that you had died they 
gave up their life in the manner that you yourself did. 
These are the bones of the nine Settis that died thus, 
andThese^ of their servants who maintained by them in 
life, paid their debt to their masters by loyalty in death. 
Your bones are covered with sand under athe Punnai 
(Sans. Punnaga, Alexandrian Laurel, Calophyllum 
mophyllum) tree. By giving up your life, you have 
made yourselLresponsiblo, for the lives of those who gave 



it up for yourself. Please consider whether you are not 
responsible for their death.’ So saying she turned round 
to Manimekhalai and explained to her how the city of 
her birth Kaveripattinam was swallowed up by the sea. 
‘ Pilivalai the daughter of the king of Naga Nadu, when 
she had borne a son for the king of the solar race, was 
worshipping the Buddha-seat when there arrived the 
ship of.Kamba|a Setti. Finding out who he was, she 
handed over the child to him with the message that the 
child was the Chola king»s. Immensely pleased the 
merchant took charge of the child and sailed away with 
it homewards. In the deep darkness of the night, the 
ship got wrecked near the shores, and nobody knew 
what had happened to the baby. Learning from such of 
them as escaped that the child was among those whose 
whereabouts were not known, king-Killi (Vadivel-Killi) 
set about searching here, there and everywhere, and, in 
his anxiety, forgot that the time had arrived for the 
celebration of the great Indra festival. Goddess Mani- 
mekhala, as the guardian deity, invoked the curse that 
the city be destroyed by the sea. Hence the destruc- 
tion of Kaveripattinam. The king went away, like 
Indra when the whole of his prosperity was also swallowecT 
up by the sea, all alone. The sage Aravana Adigal«nd 
• your mf)ther and others went away in safety to VSnji. 
If you should feel sorry to hear of the curse of the 
Goddess Manimekhala, the guardian of the sea, you 
will hear the consoling information, that she was the 
cause of the saving of the life of one of your ancestors 
who was about to be drowned in a shipwreck, and who 
lived, in consequence to do many acts of charity and earn 
the reputation of being the most charitable man at the 
time. You will hear of this from Aravana Adigal.’ So say- 
ing the Goddess of the Isle disappeared. Overcome with 



grief, the king with Manimekhalai dug up his bones that 
lay buried and discovered the bones all in position not- 
withstanding the fact the flesh and the sinews that Jpound 
them together had been eaten up. He constructed over 
them a sarcophagus of white mortar preserving the form 
of the body. The king gave way to sorrow at the sight 
of the form when Manimekhalai rose into the air and 
telling the king : ' ‘ What are you doing ? I brought you 
here from your own kingdom in order to let you know 
your previous birth and thereby enable you to continue 
the rule with charity in your great island and the islets 
in the sea between. If kings themselves adopt the rule 
of charity, what is there to keep under control ? If you 
should ask what is the supreme form of charity, bear this 
carefully in mind that it is the maintenance of all living 
creatures with food and clothing and places to live in 
safety.’ The king said in reply : ‘ Be it in my kingdom 
or in that of others, I shall adopt the path of charity as 
described by you. I can however ill afford to let 
you go away from me inasmuch as you brought me here 
and enlightened me as to the nature of my previous birth, 
and gave me, as it were a re-birth. Oh, I cannot part 
from you.’ ‘O king, do not give way to sorrow weakly. 
Your kingdom will be calling for you because of your 
absence. Take ship and return. For my part 4 shall . 
go to Vanji.’ So saying Manimekhalai flew across in 
the air. 


Flying across through the air Manimekhalai reached 
Vanji, and wishing to offer worship to the image both of 
her chaste mother Kannaki and her father Kovalan, she 
reached the temple erected in honour of the former. 
Standing before the image, with her head bowed in 



reverence, she praised the deity in the following terms : — 
‘ Instead of paying the debt of a chaste wife by either 
dying^with the husband, or putting an end to your life 
on hearing of the husband’s death, you took upon your- 
self the duty of vindicating your chastity,’ She prayed 
with tearful eyes that the chaste wife may have the 
kindness to explain this unusual procedure to her. The 
unparalleled goddess of chastity replied to her : ‘ When 
not being able to suffer the calamity that befell my 
husband, I caused the destruction of Madura by fire, the 
great Goddess of the city, Madhurapati, appeared before 
me and assured me that that was the result of our deeds 
in a previous birth. “ Two princes, cousins by birth and 
ruling respectively in Simhapuraand Kapila in the fertile 
country of Kalinga, fell to fighting against each other in 
great hatred. This war between Vasu and Kumara left 
the country desolate for six gWvudas (leagues), and made 
it impossible for anybody to approach on account of the 
prevalence of the war. A merchant Sangama by name 
with his wife, eager after profit, went there to sell 
jewellery and other articles of sale at Singapuram, In the 
course of his business, he was arrested by Bharata, a 
police official of the monarch, and shown up before thf 
monarch as a spy. Under royal orders he was beheaded 
and his wife bewailing the unfortunate death of her 
* husband, put an end to her own life by throwing herself 
from the top of a hill. It is the curse that she invoked 
at the moment of her death that has now resulted in the 
mishap to your husband.” The deeds done in i previous 
existence will inevitably result in suffering the penalty. 
Notwithstanding the truth of this, I brought about the 
destruction of the city by fire. Asa result of good deeds 
already done we have reached the heaven of the gods for 
the time. We have the consciousness tha^we shall have 



to pay the penalty for this bad deed in the future. If 
we cease to be in heaven, we are sure to be born on 
earth once again, thus working out the result of our 
deeds till such time when in the Magadha country of 
unfailing rain, in that bright city of Kapila, there should 
appear Buddha of limitless perfection. He will there 
attain to enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, and pro- 
ceed out of mercy to living beings to teach the Four 
Truths, the twelve causes and conditions, the means of 
destroying these causes and ^conditions, and thus enjible 
people to give up that which is evil all through this 
universe of existence. As a result of our having wor- 
shipped at the seven vihuras of Indra at Kaveripattinam, 
we shall not at the time be born in a life of suffering, 
and will then listen to his teaching with attention. The 
wish to renounce life will then dawn onus. We shall 
then cease to be born on earth. Even so we shall for a 
long time be the means of bringing about the fruition of 
their good deeds to many people. O, dear one, you set 
out at this old city to learn, from the votaries of the 
different systems of religion, their various systems and, 
when it appears to you as it will, that none of these 
Qpntains the truth, you will then follow the teaching of 
“ the Pitakas of the Great One ”. This is what is going 
to happen.’ Having said this, she gave Mapimejkhalai , 
to understand that, being the young woman that she was, 
nobody would teach her the highest truths of religion, 
and therefore she exhorted her to assume another form 
more suitable for learning these truths. Maijimekhalai 
accordingly assumed the form of an old hermit by making 
use of the mantra which Goddess Maniniekhala had 
taught her. In this guise she went to the temples, to 
the platforms, to the halls, to the gardens, to the tanks* 
wherever those devoted^ to penance, those who by 



discipline had attained to the control of their passions, 
those who by great learning had attained to the know- 
ledge of the right path, all round the fortification of the 
city. The ruling sovereign of this city, the great Chera 
Senguttuvan, having reduced all the land to the same 
condition as that of his own hill country, had marched 
at the head of his army up to the banks of the Ganges, 
crossing over to its northern bank by means of boats, 
defeated many kings, including Kanaka and Vijaya; 
and, bringing a stone from the Himalayas carried on the 
heads of the defeated kings, celebrated the binding of 
the fillet of victory by wearing the garland of Vskai. 
This great capital continued to be her residence till, by 
the ripening of the causes, she was ready to receive the 
teaching of the Four great Truths. 


Setting about on her mission to the city of Vanji, 
she went to the assemblage of the teachers of the differ- 
ent persuasions, and addressing the leader of the votaries 
of the path of the Vida, asked him to let her know the 
ultimate truth as he understood it. Discoursing on th? 
instruments of knowledge as recognized by his school, 
, he poijjted out that three teachers were recognized ^ of 
authority among them, namely, Vedavyasa, Krtakoti and 
the faultless Jaimini. These three have recognized in- 
struments of knowledge to be ten, eight and six respec- 
tively. These are (i) direct perception {Pratyakshe^, 
(2) Inference {AnumSnd), similitude (4) 

authority {Mgamd), (5) inferential assumption 
patti), (6) appropriateness {lycdbu ox SziabMm),' (y) 
tradition {Aitihyd), (8) non-existence or negation [Abhuvci), 
(9) inference by elimination or by correlation {Mltchi or 



Olibu, Sans. : PUrtSeshd) and (lo) occurrence {UnduneH 
or UlMneri, San. : Sambhavd). 

Of these, (i) Ksicki, direct perception, is of five 
kinds, according as they are perceived by the particular 
sense organ, namely, sensation of the colour by the eyes, 
sound by the ear, smell by the nose, taste by the tongue, 
and touch by the body. By means of these is experi- 
enced pleasure or pain. Contact of these with^the life 
principle {Prana, or Uyir of the text), the means of com- 
munication of these {vayil),^n^ the mind that experi- 
ences these {manas), operating without interruption lead 
to understanding without exclusion, without error and 
without doubt, of place, of form, of genus, of quality, of 
action with due reference to light (clearness of under- 
standing ?), sense and place. 

(2) Karudal {anumSnd) is the inference of that which 
is unseen from that which is seen or felt. It is of three 
kinds, namely, (i) the common {Podu\ Sans. : Samanya), 

(2) proceeding from the result to the cause, {Eccham ; 
or Sans. : Seskavai) and (3) from the cause to the result 
{Mudal ; or Sans. : Purvavab). It is common inference 
when, though two circumstances may not be connected 
Uievitably with each other, the occurrence of the one 
leads to the inference of the other, as in the case of the 
infe^nce of the existence of an elephant in a forest when , 
one hears a sound like the trumpting of an elephant. In 
inferring from the sight of freshes in a river, rain at the 
source of it, is inference of the cause from the result. 
When we.predict rain from the sight of the clouds, we 
are inferring the result from a cause* Thus infereoce 

is knowledge that we gain of that which is npt present ; 
and is applicable to the past, present and future. 

(3) The third means of knowledge UpamSna has 
reference to understanding by comparison by means of 



similitude. (4) is understanding by authority as 

when we assume the existence of heaven and hell from the 
writings of those of authority. (5) ArtJi^paiti is under- 
standing by association, as when a shepherd’s village is 
said to be on the Ganges, we understand that it is situate 
on the banks of the river. (6) lyalbu that which is appro- 
priate to the actual circumstances as when a man on the 
back of^an elephant wants ‘ the stick ’, one understands 
the goad. (7) Aitiham, accepted tradition, as in the case 
of a ghost existing in a tree^. (8) Abhavam is merely the 
assertion of that which does not exist in a place as non- 
existent there. (9) Mttchi is understanding by corre- 
lation as when it is said that Rama won in the battle, 
one understands the defeat of Ravana. (10) Ullaneri 
(lit. course of nature) is what usually happens as when 
an iron piece moves, we infer the existence of a magnet. 

Eight are the pramana-abhasas^ those that resemble 
instruments of knowledge, or can be regarded as such ; 
(i) knowledge by direct contact by which we 

learn the existence of all that exists ; (2) Tiryak-Kodal^ 
mistaken conception such as taking the mother of pearl 
for silver ; (3) Aiyam, doubt, remaining unsettled whether 
that which appears before the eye is a stump of wood 0/ 
a man ; (4) Teradu-Telidal, deciding without conviction, 
, as in mistaking a stump of wood for a man ; (5) Kd;^u- 
Tmrama% not understanding even on seeing, such as not 
understanding a creature to be a tiger even after 
seeing it prowling near: (6) Il-valakku, asserting as 
existent that which does not exist, as in spealyng o 4 the 
horns of a rabbit understandable only by the use of the 
expression, ^nd not by actual existence of the thing con- 
noted by the word ; (7) Unarndadai-Unardal feeling that 
which is plainly felt by experience, such as attempting to 
prove that fire is destructive o^f mist, and, (8) Ninaippu^ 



perception by assumption, such as taking a couple to be 
one’s father and mother on the statement of others. Six 
are the systems that are founded on the basis of, these 
instruments of knowledge ; (i) Lokayata, (2) Bauddha, (3) 
Sankhya, (4) Nayyayika, (5; Vaiseshika, and (6) Mimaihsa. 
The teachers of these six systems respectively are, (i) Br- 
haspati, (2) Jina, (3) Kapila, (4) Akshapada, (5), Kanada, 
and (6) Jaimini. Truth is ascertained by m^ans of 
Pmtyaksha, {2) Anumana, (3) Satta (Sans. Sabda 
otherwise Agamd)^ (4) Upfcmana, (5) ArthapattimA 
(6) Abhava. These are the instruments of knowledge 
accepted as such ‘ at the present time ’. 

Passing on from him, she went to the SaivavEdi. In 
response to her enquiry that he might explain his system, 
he stated the two lights (the sun and the moon), the doer 
and the five elements constitute the basis from out of which 
human beings are made by combination of life and body. 
He ivho does this is constituted of the Kalas ; his nature 
it is to create beings as an act of play, and he destroys them 
and thus gets rid of their sufferings ; and He, besides whom 
there is none else, such a one is my God The Brahma- 
vadi told her that the whole of the universe is the out- 
cpme of one egg brought forth by the supreme being, 
Brahma. A teacher who had eagerly studied the purana 
of Vjshnu (he of the colour of the sea) asserte 4 that 
Narayana was the protector of all. The Vedavadi 
averred that the Veda, otherwise called Arana, the unborn 
source of knowledge, has neither beginning nor end. Kalpa 
constitutes its hands, Chandas its feet, En {/yotisha or 
astronomy) its eyes, Nirukta its ears, Siksha its nose and 
Vyakarana its face. ‘ The path taught in the Veda is the 
path of life.’ Manimekhalai felt that the teachings of these 
would not conform either to truth itself as taught in 
learned books,, or as practised by the knowing. 



She then addressed the venerable one, the expounder of 
‘ the book ’ of the Ajivakas, and asked him to state what 
the governing deity was according to him and what the 
authoritative work of his teaching. The Ajivaka teacher 
replied : ‘ That one whose knowledge is limitless and 

who is seen immanent always and in all things of the vast 
and limitless variety of things that exist, is ‘ our supreme 
teacher.’ The subject matter of the treatise dealing 
with the Ajivakas is of five things, namely, life and the 
fo«r elements, earth, wa^er, fire, and air in indivisible 
atoms. These when they combine could be felt and 
seen, but when broken up, they could not be seen. The 
elements, earth, water, fire and air, these four gather 
together as a hill, tree or body; or disintegrate and 
spread themselves out as the constituent atoms. That 
which perceives these phenomena is what is called life. 
Earth is in the form of a solid, wrater exhibits the quality 
of coolness and is fluid ; fire sends up its flame and 
causes the sensation of heat; air moves to and fro. 
Thus is constituted the nature of these elements. These 
in their atomic condition, without a beginning, may 
assume another nature by change of form, but cannot be 
destroyed. There is nothing that comes into existeiTce 
anew and enters into another. The atom will noj^ split 
into J;wo, nor will it expand in that same form. iThese 
will however move, will flow and will rise. They will 
combine into a hill ; they will break up into each its own 
particular form of atoms. They may come.together in 
■such density as to assume the form of* solid? like 
diamond ; they will assume the form of a hallow 
bamboo ; J;hey will constitute the seed which sprouts 
out and grows. Thus the elements, as the full moon, 
when they spread out together over the whole earth and 
assume the forms of the various bhutas, remain combined 
25 ' 



in the proportion of the whole, or three quarters, or 
half, or a quarter, but neither more nor less, and get 
named according as the one or the other predominates. 
Unless they combine in this manner, they will not 
attain to the forms of the firm earth, or fluid water, or 
the warming fire, or the moving wind. One atom could 
be seen only by those who have the divine eye of 
knowledge ; others cannot see them. In the shape of 
combined atoms constituting bhutas they can be seen ; 
just as in the dusk of an evening one may not se« a 
single hair, though one could easily discern a bundle of 
it. These atoms in their combination are born in black, 
or dark blue, or green, or red, or golden, or pure white. 
These are the six forms in which these elements take 
birth, in combination. These are in the rising order of 
excellence, and it is by being born pure white that 
these attain to cessation of birth [vldii). Those who do 
not wish to suffer will reach this end. This is the 
nature of the path of righteousness. The false path, on 
the contrary, is a circle of birth, death and suffering, of 
taking birth in the place appointed, of suffering sorrow 
and happiness in the great majority of cases. Getting 
rid of these, of being born and of dying, come to a being 
in the womb. Happiness and suffering and the result 
of the-se may be described as atoms also. It is a previ- 
ous fate that makes for the suffering to follow. This 
is the essence of the teaching of the treatise of Markali.^ 
Maniraekh^lai regarding this as a contradictory state- 
ment of ill-applied words, passed on to the Nirgrantha. 

^ Markali, it is obvious, is Markali Gosala, the founder of the sect of Ajiva- 
kas. But any treatise written by him has not so far been noticed to my know- 
ledge. Here apparently is an accepted work of authority by this teacher. 
That work according to the NilakeSi Tirattu is called Navakadir^ translated 
into Tamil, Onbadukadir. According to the same authority, the teaching of 
|he Ajivakas had g^reat vogue in a place called Samadanda. 



She asked the Nirgrantha, as she did the others to 
expound truly ‘ who the deity that he worshipped was 
and jvhat the teaching o£ the authoritative works o£ bis 
sect ; how that teaching takes effect, what it is that binds 
them to existence and how release can be obtained 
from this bondage.’ He replied: ‘Our deity is that 
one who is worshipped by the Indras. The teaching 
that hg vouchsafed to us consists of the following six 
sections : — 

• (i) Dharmastikaya, («) Adharmastikaya, (3) Kala, 
(4) Akasa, (5) Jiva, (6) the Paramanus. Good deeds and 
bad deeds and the bondage {iaudka) resulting therefrom 
together with release {mdu) from this bondage, constitute 
the excellent teaching. A thing may exist in its own 
nature, or change it and assume thatof another with which 
it is associated. So doing it shows itself impermanent 
and permanent, thus exhibiting at one moment the three 
conditions of appearance, existence and destruction, the 
three indivisible states. That a margosa seed sprouts 
and grows into a tree makes the seed eternal, but that 
the seed no longer exists in the tree makes it non-eternal. 
So also when green peas are boiled and made into a 
pastry, the nature of the peas is not destroyed and yetit 
ceases to be peas. The cause of the change cs in 
Dharmastikaya (principle of movement) which Exists 
everywhere and enables movement in things. Similarly 
the related principle of stationariness is equally eternal 
and all-pervading and enables things to be ia a statical 
condition. Time measures things by the short span of 
a second as well as the almost immeasurable Kalpa. 
AkaSa gives the .space for all things to be in. When 
jtva or life combines with the body or matter, it is capable 
of enjoying taste, etc. The irreducible atom may form 
part of a body or be something else out dl it. It is jlva 



in combination with body that does good or does evil. 
The result of these deeds is bondage ; the suppression of 
the causes and the consequent bondage arising therq^rom, 
constitutes release {Nirvaiid). 

The Sankhya philosopher expounded that the Primary 
Element (Mula Prakrti) forms the matrix in which all 
things appear. It has no activity of its own and is 
common to all. It is formed of the three qualities, and 
is difficult to conceive. From this primary element 
(Mula Prakrti) arises Mahaii or Buddhi (great) ; fwam 
this springs akasa (space) ; from akasa arises vayu (air) ; 
from air arises fire, a^ni (Sans. Agni) ; from this again 
comes water {appii, Sans. Apah) ; from water arises 
earth. From a combination of all these springs mind 
(manas). In the mind springs the notion of self ahmikum 
(or individuation). Similarly from akasa springs sound 
heard by the ear; from vayu the sense of touch felt by 
the skin; from agni arises the sense of sight felt by the 
eyes; from out of water taste experienced by the tongue; 
from earth springs the sense of smell experienced by the 
nose. These find expression by means of the physical 
organs ; speech by the tongue, touch by the hand, move- 
ment by the feet, evacuation by puyu (excretal organs) 
and generation by upastha (generative organs). Thus 
arising by transformation of the bhutas recited above, 
come into existence hills, trees, etc. These again get 
merged in their sources in a process of involution as they 
come into existence by a process of evolution. In the 
process of involution all these become one again and 
pervade all space and exist for eternity. 

Purusha (subject) on the contrary, is easy to conceive, 
without being the three qualities {gums), incapable of be- 
ing grasped by the sense organs {indriyas) without being 
the matrix in ^hich othei*things appear, being none-the- 



less that which could be felt by all those things, being a 
unity all-pervading and eternal, will show itself as that 
which is conceived as eternal. Things understood by 
the senses are twenty-five. Of these the five elements 
are earth, w'ater, fire, air and ether; five are the organs, 
the body, the mouth, the eyes, the nose and the ear. 
Taste, sight, touch, sound and smell, these are the five 
subtle , elements, the tongue, the feet, the hands, the 
excretary organs, and the generating organs constitute 
the^organs of action. Then follow' mind {manas), intelli- 
gence {biiddhi), subjectivation {aliankarani), feeling 
{chittani) and life, otherwise called alma. T bese constitute 
the twenty-five entities {tatvas). 

Having heard this clear exposition, Manimekhalai 
passed on to the Vaiseshika, and asked him to proceed 
with his argument. ‘ Substance, qualities, action, 
commonness, speciality and collectivity, these constitute 
the six divisions. Of these the first has the attributes 
of the second and the third, and is the cause of all 
things. These substances, or matter, fall into nine 
divisions, earth, water, fire, air, space, the directions, 
time, soul and mind. Of these, earth is possessed of 
the five qualities, of sound, touch, sight, taste, and 
smell. The other four (water, fire, air and space) ^ave 
• qualities, each one less, in the order in which they are 
given above. Sound, touch, sight, smell, taste, largeness, 
smallness, hardness, softness, rightness, thinness, capa- 
city to take shape, capacity to take sight, these csonstitute 
the qualities of matter. Matter, quality and capacity for 
action are common to all forms of matter. Since change 
of form and stationariness are common qualities of all 
matter, death and existence constitute also the essence 
•of matter. Attributes, division of matter and collection 
of matter, qualities and that which has qhalities, these 


are the main features of existing things,’ concluded the 
Vaiseshika teacher. 

She addressed herself last of all to the Bhutavad^ He 
said; ‘Just as when the flower Bauhinia race- 

mosa) and jaggery(crude sugar) with other things are mixed 
fermentation springs into existence, so when the ele- 
ments combine, there springs a consciousness of feeling. 
When they break up, this consciousness will alsQ break 
up and disappear just as the sound ceases when a drum is 
taken out into its parts. Any 6)ne of these elements, when 
it is in life and has this consciousness, and when it has 
neither of these, springs into existence from out of the 
same element. This is the true course of things. Other 
details of the teaching that I may have to expound, and 
the tatvas that I may have to explain are the same as 
those of the Lokayatas. Among the Frammas, Praiyaksha 
is the one admissible, even Anumana is to be rejected. 
That which exists in the present, and that which we 
enjoy in this present life, are the only two states of 
existence ; that there is another life and the enjoyment 
of the result of our deeds in it, are both of them false.’ 
Having thus heard the teachings of all the systems, she 
Thought; ‘Though these be none of them acceptable, I 
sha^l not answer any of these. Does anybody know that 
I have knowledge of my previous birth.’ So saying she • 
laughed in scorn at the imperfections of the Bhutavadi’s 
argument in particular. She further observed ‘ that 
the minds of people change when one gets possessed, 
or 'when 'one is in a state of dreaming. There can be 
no doubt about this. Do you not recognize your father 
and mother only by inference .? Who on this earth can 
understand this otherwise ? Without understanding the 
ultimate truth, it would be impossible without a doubt" 
to know the truth oi things.’ While still in her 



disguise, she gave this reply to the Bhutavadi, having 
learnt already the five systems of thought, the five, 
nameljj? (i) Vaidikavada, taking into it the first five 
sections, and (2) Jaina, including 6 and 7 following, 
and (3), (4), (5) the Sankhya, Vaiseshika and Bhutavada 
including Lokayata, of the ten systems expounded in 
this chapter. 


'phere in the city of Vagji she searched for Aravana 
Adigal and her mother and companion, and, passing 
through the outer city into the fort and the various 
streets occupied by the different classes of citizens, she 
reached the place where those that travel through the 
air get down to land. She still preserved her disguise, 
and entered the vihura of the Bauddhas as beautiful as the 
Aindravihara at Kaveripattinam where the residents 
listened to the exposition of the teachings of the Buddha. 
Finding there the father of Kovalan among the holy 
ones, she made her obeisance to him in due form and 
recounted to him how she came into possession of 
the miraculous bowl, how by means of that she became 
acquainted with the king of Savaham who was ‘ ruling * 
the earth ’ in great prosperity, how she taught himiiis 
4)reviou^ birth by showing him the Buddha-seat • in 
Manipallavam, and how in the course of these transac- 
tions the city of Puhar was swallowed up by the sea. 
Learning that, on account of this calamity, her* mother 
and the sage Aravana Adigal had left for Vanji, she 
journeyed to that city sending the king of Savaham 
back to his kingdom. Arriving at Vanji, she said that, 
in her new form, she heard the teachings of the various 
other persuasions from men most competent to expound 
them. Rejecting them all as not Hght, she wished to hear 


the teaching of the Buddha which was superior to them 
all, and came in search of Aravana Adigal. Having said 
this, she told him that it was her good fortune that 
brought her to the presence of him who had assumed the 
holy garb of a Buddhist mendicant. He said in reply : 

‘ Listen, dear one, having heard of the calamity that 
befell both your father and mother and the consequent 
destruction of Madura, I resolved to give up thg life of 
a householder which was but a delusion, since the time 
had come for me to adopt t}»e life of a Buddhist msudi- 
cant Feeling convinced that this body and all the 
wealth that I had acquired through life were alike 
unstable, I took up this life and resolved to adopt the 
path of the Dkarma. Having assumed such a life how 
I happened to come to this city, I shall recount now. 
Once on a former occasion when the great Chera king, 
the ruler of the Kuttuvar, who planted his emblem of the 
bow on the Himalayas with the ladies of the household 
entered this grove and remained here in the pleasance 
for recreation, a few Dha-rmachamnas who, having 
worshipped the hill Samanoli in the island of Lanka 
and, passing round in circumambulation, made up their 
" minds to get down to earth as the time for setting the 
king on the good path had come. Seeing them on this 
rock, he offered worship to them as a insult oi 
previous good deeds, and, washing their feet in due form, 
offered to them food prepared of “ the four kinds and 
tqe sixT flavours ”. Having done this, he praised their 
condesc*ension and offered them worship with due 
hospitality along with his whole court. On that occa- 
sion these holy ones expounded to him the sufferings of 
birth and the joys of ceasing to be born, and thus 
implanted into his mind the Four Truths of the firet 
teacher of ^the JDh&nrfti, 1 hen the ninth ancestor of 



Kovalan, your father, being an intimate friend of the 
Chera king had also the benefit of the instruction as a 
result^ of the accumulated merit of his good deeds. 
Distributing among the needy all the ancestral wealth 
that he inherited and all that he himself had added to it, 
he erected for the Sugata (Buddha) this Chaitya of brilliant 
white stucco with its turrets reaching to the skies. Since 
this was erected in order that those that live in this world 
might visit it and destroy the evil attaching to them, I 
caA^ here to offer worship.^ Hearing from the holy ones 
here that Kaveripattinam was likely to be swallowed up 
by the sea, I made up my mind to stay here alone. Fur- 
ther your father who had lost his life as a result of evil 
deeds, would appear as a god as a result of good deeds in 
past existence. Enjoying the result of all previous good 
deeds in that life, he would at the end of this life be 
born along with his wife in the holy city of Kapila 
(Kapilavastu) as he had the benefit of the Buddha’s 
teaching previously. Listening to the teaching of the 
Buadha in that city, he will attain to the end of living 
(Nirvana). This I had heard from those who know the 
past, present and future, and understood the drift of it. 

I also shall hear that teaching on that day along with yo«r 
father. Farther since you had learnt your past^from 
* Tuva^ikan, the statuette on the pillar, I had listengd to 
the teaching of Aravana Adigal expounding the path of 
good life. He is the cause of good to you, as is also the 
city of Kanchi. On the day that he left fojr Kanchi, 
your mother and her companion Sutamati als® left Vith 
him. More than this, listen beautiful one, Kanchi of 
golden battlements has lost all her beauty since the 
country dependent thereon had been suffering from a 
• severe famine owing to failure of rain. Even the holy 
ftiendicant ones there had none to give them alms, and 
26 • 



have arrived here. You carry the balm for hunger, and 
therefore you should appear in that country, and like 
seasonal rain, you must revive the languishing (^ountry 
and its inhabitants.’ Thus concluded the holy one. 
Manimekhalai with a profound obeisance to him, rose 
into the air with the bowl in her hand to the west of the 
city, and moving along the north, reached the city of 
Kanchl, which looked like the city of Indra , himself 
descended to the earth, and which, losing its fertility, 
looked poor like the thus impoverished city of heaven 
itself. With a melting heart for the sufferings of the city, 
she flew round the city in circumambulation, and, descend- 
ing in the middle of it, worshipped the Chaitya which 
was erected for the Bodhi tree and the Buddha himself, 
the former of which was made of gold, both stem and 
branches, and of emerald leaves. She passed on to the 
south-west into a grove full of flowering trees. The 
chief of the palace guard went to the king and intimated 
to him that the daughter of Kovalan, the eminently holy 
and the unparalleled one in the whole of Jambudvipa, 
had arrived at the city, and, with the inexhaustible food- 
providing bowl in her hand, was just then in the Dhar- 
'^mada Vana. Her appearance being quite as welcome 
as tjiat of welcome rain, the king with his ‘ assemblies of 
ministers ’, feeling gratified that what the statuette on 
the pillar had said had already turned true, offering 
worship and praising her, bowed to her from a distance 
and went to the grove where she was. Addressing her, 
he ''said : ‘ Either because my rule had deflected from 
the path of righteousness, or because of errors in the 
performance of austerities by those whose duty it was to 
do them, or because of women falling away from the 
path of chastity, the whole of my country suffers from' 
want of rain, ' Not knowing how it came about, I was 



in great perplexity when a goddess appeared before me 
and said; — “ Give up grief. As a result of your good 
deeds in the past, there will appear a damsel with a 
begging bowl in her hand. Fed from that inexhaustible 
bowl the whole living world will revive. As a result of 
her grace, rains will pour in plenty at the command of 
Indra, and many other miracles will take place in this 
town. Even when rains fail, the country will still have 
an abundance of water. In the great streets, construct 
tanjfs and plant gardens, so that they may appear with 
the tanks constructed of olcf, as if the great Manipallavam 
itself had come here.” So saying she disappeared.’ 
He pointed out to Manimekhalai where exactly he 
actually carried out the instructions of the goddess. 
Manimekhalai entered the grove, and, pleased with its 
appointments and appearance, she got consructed a 
Buddha seat just like that which she saw in Manipalla- 
vam. She also got a temple constructed for Tivatilakai 
and the goddess Manimekhala, and arranged for the 
celebration of recurring festivals through the king. 
Having arranged for all these, she performed the actual 
worship, and placing the begging bowl on the Buddha- 
seat, she invited all living beings suffering from hungejr 
to come in. Then there came crowds of people speak- 
* ing ‘ ^e eighteen languages ’ ; the blind, the deaf* the 
maimed, the helpless, the dumb, the diseased, those 
engaged in the performance of penance, those suffering 
from hunger, those suffering from extreme poverty, 
these and many hundreds of thousands of aaimalsf all 
came crowding in. To all of them, she supplied food so 
inexhaustibly that it was only the hands of those that 
received it that felt exhausted. They all returned after 
• satisfying, to the full, their hunger, praising the young 
lady, who appeared as if through the resuli of having fed 



a very holy person in previous existence, and thereby 
brought prosperity to the land, as an abundance of water, 
good land, timely rain, change of seasons, the necessary 
instruments of cultivation, seeds sown properly and 
yield returning in plenty, would. At this time, there 
came to the grove Aravana Adigal with her mother and 
her companion Sutamati. She prostrated before them, 
and, washing their feet, saw them seated suitably to their 
holiness, and provided them with delicious food and 
drink. She served to them ^afterwards betel and oam- 
phor, and prayed that what she long desired may turn 
fruitful and true. So saying, she discarded her disguise 
and made a profound obeisance again. 


After bestowing his blessing upon the young lady 
who had made her obeisance to him in due form. Saint 
Aravana said to her : ‘ Pilivalai the daughter of the 
king of Naga Nadu, made over jier tender baby, born to 
Nedu-vel-Killi, to Kambala Setti whose single ship 
touched the island on its way to India. Taking the 
baby from her, with the respect due to its royal origin, 
Kambala Setti set sail from there on his homeward 
jourijpy. On that day, at the darkest part of the night 
and ^ery close to the shore, the boat capsized.^ Not «„ 
seeing the child after the accident the Setti duly reported 
the loss of the baby to the king, who, in his anxiety and 
occupatioft in directing the search of the baby, forgot 
the IfestivcCl of Indra. Indra, in his turn, commanded, 
through goddess Manimekhala that the city of Puhar be 
swallowed up by the sea. An ancestor of your father 
generations ago suffered shipwreck and was lost in the 
sea, much like a golden needle in a rich carpet of gold, » 
and was struggling for sewen days continuously without 



losing life altogether. Understanding this by the 
quiver in his white carpet, Indra commanded the goddess 
to rescue, from suffering death in the sea, that one who 
was to become a Buddha. She carried him out of the 
sea in order that the Paramita} might receive fulfilment, 
that the Dharma Chakra may keep revolving. Hearing 
from the knowing Charanas (wanderers through the air) 
that thqt was her habitual function, your father gave you 
her • name. Your renunciation was that very day 
intifnated to him in a dre^i with all the clearness of 
reality. Since through her the city had been over- 
whelmed, your mothers and myself retired to Kanchi for 
your sake. Having heard this Manimekhalai said in 
reply, after making a profound obeisance, ‘ even so said 
Tivatilakai, who worships the golden seat of the Buddha, 
to her.’ 

‘ In accordance therewith, I assumed another disguise 
in that fair city (Vanji), and heard the varied teaching 
of the sects, each system expounded according to 
its own authoritative works {Nul, Sutra). I took 
none of them really to heart as they were not acceptable, 
and carried them just as I did the disguise I put on. 
May the holy one therefore instruct me in the truth.* 
Aravana Adigal assented and expounded the teaching of 
• Buddjjism as follows : — • 

‘ The first teacher is Jinendra; his instruments of 
knowledge [Alavai) are but two, namely, faultless percep- 
tion {Prattiyam or Pratyakshd) and inference JJCaruttu 
or Anumand). Knowledge acquired by direct perception 

^ The Perfections, generally ten but the number is sometimes given as eight 
and even six. Tflese ten are (1) Da^ia (charity), (2) &ila (Purity of conduct), 
(3) (Patience), (4) Kirya (Strenuousness), (5) (Medita- 
tion), (6) (Intelligence), (7) (Employment of right means) 

^(8) Framdh&na (Resoluteness), (9) Bala (Strength) and (10) Gmna (Know- 
leSge). • * 



is taken to be SuUuitarvu {Pratyaks/m, peixeption). 
Name {Nama), class {Jaii), quality (Gzma), and action 
(Kriya), are excluded from this as they are obtainable in 
inference {Anumana) as well. Inference by cause or 
consequence, and commoir {Samanyd) inference are liable 
to error. That which is free from error is inference from 
result as from smoke, fire. All the other Pramanas'^ 
inasmuchas they are capable of being included in Karuttu 
may be treated as Anumana. Other means of knowledge 
are the following five, namely: — (i) Pakkam •. 
Paksha-, proposition, also called Pratigna) ; (2) Hetu 
(reason) ; (3) Tittantam (Sans. Drishimita, example, also 
Udshamna) ; (4) Upanaya (application) ; and (5) Niga- 
mana (conclusion). Of these Pakkam consists in saying 
that this hill has fire in iL When you state, it is so 
because it smokes^ you are stating the reason. If you add 
just like a kitchen^ you are giving an example. To say 
that the hill also smokes is to state the application 
{Upanaya). If it has smoke it imist have fire is coming 
to a conclusion. 

That which has no fire can have no smoke, like 
water, is the contrary concomitant of the proposition, 
amd is negative application. Thus it serves as appli- 
catio^n by contrariety — negative concomitance. When 
the jeal reason {Hetu) is based on identity {Svabhuvd), » 
the proposition or subject takes the form, sound is non- 
eternal. When we urge, because it is artificial, we state 
the attriljute of the subject {Paksha dharmd). ‘ What- 
ever is made is non-eternal like a pot,’ is a similar case 
{Sapaksha), with the example added. Whatever is not 
eternal and not capable of being made like ether is the 

^ In the absence of any specific recital of these in this context these must ^ 
refer to the six said ‘to be prevalent at the present time,’ in Book 27 
above. ^ 



counter case {Vipaksha with example) and gives the con- 
comitance of contrariety. In negative pramana the 
stateijient that in this open space there is no pot consti- 
tutes the subject. ‘ Because it is not seen is the 
attribute of the subject. ‘ As they do not exist, we have 
not seen the horns of a rabbit is a similar example of 
that method. When we say ‘whatever exists will be 
seen lijje a myrabolam in the open hand ’ is a similar but 
counter-statement. It is in this way that what is urged 
as reason establishes facts.. 

If you ask what it is that smoke (as reason) esta- 
blishes, the existence of smoke proves the existence of 
fire by the positive concomitance, where there is smoke 
there is always fire, and the negative concomitance there 
is no smoke where there is no fire. If so, when one sees 
before him smoke, the darkness proceeding straight from 
it, or going up in spiral, as this is due to fire, when you 
see something dark and smoky overhead you must infer 
the existence of fire. If co-existence thus establishes 
facts, then when one who had formerly seen an ass and a 
woman at one place and at one time, sees an ass at 
another time, he should infer the existence of a woman 
then and there. No. This will not do. 

If the negative concomitance will prove that thjre is 
no siftoke where there is no fire, one who did not see in 
the mane of an ass the tail of a fox because he saw no 
tail of a dog, could rarely infer the existence of a dog’s 
tail in another place where he saw the tail, of a fox. 
Therefore even that is inadmissible. Upmthya (appli- 
cation) and nigamana (conclusion), connected with the 
drishtanta ^example) as they are, may be regarded as 
included in it. 

• Paksha (proposition). Mu (reason), drishtanta 
(Example) are of two kinds, valid and in'wlid. Among 



these, the valid proposition is that which has included in 
it (i) the explicit subject possessed of attributes, and 
(2) the changes that the plainly discernible attribute of 
the conclusion undergoes when found elsewhere. For 
example, to say that sound is either eternal or non-eternal 
is a valid proposition. In this the subject possessed of 
attributes is Sabda. Sadhyadharma (attribute of the con- 
clusion) is its being either eternal or non-eternaj. The 
reason (/?^/«) is of three kinds ; (i) being attributive to 
the subject ; (2) becoming attributable to a similar sub- 
ject and (3) becoming non-attributable to the opposite. 

If sapaksiha (similarity of character) is to be esta- 
blished, the attribute must, as stated in the proposition 
{pakska), be ascribable generally {poduvahai or sS-manyd), 
Sound is non-eternal like a pot. If its vipakska, con- 
trary concomitance, is to be stated, whatever is not non- 
eternal is not made like ether {(ikaiti). The fact of being 
and the act of appearing as a result of the making, being 
respectively attributable to the subject {pakshd) and the 
example (sapa/cs/ia), and not so attributable to the con- 
trary or negative concomitant, becomes the valid reason 
for predication of non-eternality to sound. 

Valid drishtmita (example) is of two kinds : — 
Sadkarmya (similar character) and Vaidharmya (different 
character). A Sadkarmya example is, sound js non-* 
eternal like a pot when they exist together. Vaidharmya 
example consists in the non-existence of the reason when 
the conclusion does not exist. These constitute valid 
me'ans oFproof. 

Fallacious pakska (proposition), ketu (reason) and 
edutlukkaitu {drishtanta or example) are the iol lowing: — 
Fallacious propositions are of nine kinds: (i) Praiyaksha 
viruddham, (2) ATZumana viruddkam, (3) Suvachana 
v^ruddham, (4) Ldka vlrnddham, (5) Agama vir 7 iddh(M^ 



(6) Aprasiddha viteshanam, (j) Aprasiddha viseskyam, 
(8) Aprasiddha ubhaya^n, (9) Aprasiddha sambandham. 
Of th^se (i) the first contradicts direct experience as in 
‘ sound cannot be heard b}’ the ear (2) Annmafia 
viruddham consists in making contrary inference as in 
describing a non-eternal pot as eternal. (3) Suvachana 
viruddham consists in contradictory speech as in des- 
cribing £»ne’s own mother as a barren woman. (4) Loka 
viruddham contradicts general experience as in saying 
thalfthe moon is not the m^)on. (5) Agama viruddham 
consists in making statements contradictory to accepted 
books of authority as when the non-eternalist Vaiseshika 
calls eternal that which is non-eternal. (6) Aprasiddha 
viseshanam consists in not understanding that which is 
provable by the opponent, as when a Bauddha tells the 
eternalist Sankhya that sound is destructible. (7) Apra- 
siddha viseshyam consists in a statement where the 
proposition is not capable of predication to the opponent, 
as when a Sankhya states to a Bauddha, who does not 
believe in the existence of a soul, that the soul is capable 
of understanding. (8) Aprasiddha ubhayam consists in 
a statement which to the opponent is unacceptable either 
as a proposition or as the conclusion; as when a' 
Vaiseshika tells a Bauddha (who believes neithes in 
•happiness nor in soul), that, for happiness and* all 
else connected with it, the source of origin is the 
soul. (9) Aprasiddha sambandham consists in proving 
that which is already accepted by the oppocient, ^as 
when a Bauddha is told that sound is non-’eternal— 
a statement which does not require to be proved 
to him. • 

Similarly Hetuppoli or fallacious middle term is of 

'three kinds : — 

(i) or unproved; 

?7 ■ * • • * 



(s) AnaikUntikam or uncertain, when the lack of 
truth of the middle term is recognized by the one party 
only, , 


(3) Viruddham or contradictory, as when the truth 
of the middle term is open to question. 

Gf these the first Asiddham is of four forms, namely 

(1) UbhayEsiddhain * • 

(2) AnyathUsiddham 

(3) Siddhasiddham ^ ^ 


(4) AsrayUsiddham. 

Of these four, the first is where the predicate or the 
middle term is not acceptable as true to both the parties, 
as when it is said, 

that sound is a eternal 
because it is seen. 

(2) AnyathEstddham is where the middle term is 
not recognized by the opposing party, as when it is said 
that : 

„ Sound is a product of evolution 

And therefore non-eternal. 

It sgems unproved to the Sankhya who does not admit s 
that sound is a product of evolution, but is merely a 
reflex of that which is in the mind ; as in the example : 

^ Sound is a product of evolution 
n Therefore it is not eternal. 

The fact of evolution being no more than the expression 
of the speaker’s understanding, it will not be acceptable 
as a reason to the Sankhya. 

(3) Siddha-asiddham consists in the reason or the'' 
middle term being doubtful in drawing a conclusion, as 



when that which appears before one may be taken to be 
either vapour or mist, it is actually taken to be smoke, 
and fr^ra that, the conclusion is drawn that there must be 
fire behind. 

(4) Asraya-siddham is to prove to the opponent 
the non-existence of the Dharmin or the middle term as 
when one states that 

, Ether (or dkaio) is a substance 
. Because it has the quality of sound, 

the* conclusion is unprovf d to him who believes that 
ether is not a substance. 

Anaikantikam similarly is of six forms : — 

(1) Sadhd,rana\ 

(2) AsadMrana] 

(3) Sapakkaikade'saviruddha Vipakkavyapi ; 

(4) Vipakkaika desaviruddka SapakkavyUpi ; 

(5) U apiyikadlsaviruddha zxA 

(6) Viruddha VyabhicJmri. 

Of these, Sadharana consists in the common hctu or 
middle term being uncertain, both in the Sapaksha and 
in the Vipaksha (a similar and the counter case), as in 

the example > • 

Sound is non-eternal 

Because it is cognizable. • 

The Equality of cognizability is a common quality of 
things eternal and things non-eternal. It is cognizable 
to be non-eternal as in the case of a pot, a product ; it is 
cognizable to be eternal as in the case of ether# • 

(2) AsMharam is that in which the hUu or the 
reason whi^ is contemplated is non-existent either ip 

the similar case or in the counterxase, as in the example * 
Sound is eternal 

• Because it is audible^ • 



The reason of audibility, if it exists in the minor 
term, does not exist in the Sapaksha or Vipaksha or 
the exceptional. In other words, it is not general ejjough, 
and therefore it becomes doubtful and uncertain. 

(3) Sa-pakkaikadesaviruddhavipakkavyapi consists 
in the hetu or the reason or the middle term abiding in 
some of the things homogeneous with and in all of the 
things heterogeneous with the major term, as when it is 
said : 

Sound is the product of effort ^ 

Because it is non-eternal. 

Here the reason or the middle term while it exists in 
lightning and ether ipikasd) both of which are not products 
of effort, it abides in lightning, but is not seen in aka'sa, 
and therefore it is non-eternal. Since it resembles the 
pot it may get destroyed and therefore become a product 
of effort, or whether it will get destroyed as in the case of 
lightning and will not be the product of effort. Thus it 
becomes open to doubt. 

(4) Vipakkaikade'saroiruddhi-sapakkavyapi consists in 
the hetu or the middle term while it abides in a part of 
Jthings heterogeneous, it abides in all things homogeneous 
with it, as when it is said : 

Sound is the product of effort , 

Because it is non-eternal. 

The reason or the middle term non-eternal exists in 
:ska'sa anji lightning which are heterogeneous with being 
th€ prod'uct, while it shows itself in lightning and does 
not in akaia. In the sapaksha as in the case of the pot, 
it abides in all things. Therefore it beconses doubtful 
whether being non-eternal as in lightning, it will not 
show itself as a product, or being non-eternal as a pot if 
will still appear as a product of effort. ' 



( 5 ) U paya.ikadesviruddhi consists in the reason or the 
middle term abiding in some of the homogeneous and 
some pf the heterogeneous things from the major term as 
when it is said : 

Sound is eternal 
Because it is non-corporeal. 

In this example the middle term non-corporeality on 
•the side of eternal is found in akaia and in the minute 
atoms which are homogeneous with things eternal, and 
mat;e them incorporeal. Similarly in the case of things 
heterogeneous with those that are eternal as a pot or 
happiness. This incorporeality abides in happiness and 
does not in a pot. Therefore whether the middle term 
abides only in some of the things it cannot be treated as 
anaiaku,ntikam as it leads to the doubt whether things 
incorporeal are eternal like akssa or non-eternal like 

(6) F iruddhavyabhichari consists in the middle term 
not being distinctly the reason, for the thesis supports 
even that which is contradictory to the thesis, as in the 
example : 

Sound is eternal , 

Because it is the product of effort. 

» Whiie this may be regarded as valid in so far, as it 
applies to the pot, etc., which are homogeneous as being 
products of effort, sound is eternal because it is audible 
as is the character of sound, is also equally va^id. Since 
the validity is equally good for both the theSis an3 its 
contradictory, it ceases to be AikUntika (peculiar). 

Virudiha is of four kinds, namely ; — 

(1) Dharmasvarupa Vipariia Sudhanam : wliere in the 
* statement of the Faksha or Dharmm^ the major term is contra- 
dictory to the Sddkana or the middle term ; • 



(2) DkarmamiSsha-vipartia S&dhanam : where the DharmH'- 
visesha or the attribute or the predicate implied in the major 
term is contradictory to the middle term, Sddha 7 ia ; 

(3) DharmasvarUpa-vipanta SMkanam : where the form of 
the minor term is contradictory to the Sdd/m72a or the middle 
term ; and 

(4) Dharfnaviiisha-viparzia SMhaTzaTTz : when the predicate 
implied in the minor term is contradictory to the StidhaTia or the 
middle term. 

Of these the first is found when in the hetu ^ ' the 
middle term, the major ^erm is faulty, as in '^he 
example : — 

Sound is eternal 
Because it is a product. 

In this the character of being a product implies that 
sound is non-eternal. Therefore the hlhi or reason of 
being a product establishes the non-eternality which is 
contradictory to the eternality stated in the middle term. 
Hence the contradiction between the two. 

(2) The second consists in the reason or the hetu 
offered being contradictory to the attribute implied in 
the major term, Sadhyadharma ; for example : — 

The eyes and other instruments of sense are for the 
service of something else. 

Because they are composed of particles 

^ Like bed, seat, etc. 

Of these the hetu or the middle term * being com- 
posed of particles ' (like bed, seat, etc., which are of 
service to ^someone else) make the eye and other organs 
of sgnse ako serviceable to someone else. This someone 
else like the occupant of a bed or seat is made one dis- 
tinct from the eye and other organs of sense, and thus 
the soul ; a thing without organs is made info a thing 
with organs. This is contradictory _to the actual attri- 
butes of the major term,* which is Atmm here, and not 



body merely ; thus it makes the soul which is without 
any sense organs possessed of organs, and constitutes 
a cory:radiction between the major term and the middle 

(3) The third consists in the hetu or the middle 
term by itself contradicting the form of the minor term, 
as in the example ; — 

. •Bhava (existence) is substance, but not action, nor has 

• it quality. 

• Whatever substance ^has both quality and is capable 
of action is different like the character of 

The hetu or the middle term which illustrates that 
substance, quality and character being combined in it, 
Unmai {Bhava or existence) is stated to be something 
distinct. This is sUmanya {podu) which gives the reason 
for the existence of the three. This Unmai {Bhava or 
existence) not being found in the Sadhya or the major 
term and the DrishtSnta or example, but not containing 
the attributes of Snmanya or the generality nor any other 
attribute, what is stated to exist in the Dharmin or the 
minor term, is made to be non-existent, and thus 
becomes contradictory. 

The fourth consists in the establishment of the jron- 
■» existence of the attributes in the Dhartnin or the nunor 
term. In the example given above, the Bhava or exis- 
tence is the doing and the quality of the doer. Since 
this is contradicted, it may also be taken as contradicting 
that which is predicated in the middle term. * 


These are what are called Dhristantabhasa or 
•examples containing fallacies. It was already stated that 
l^hyishtcLnta is of two kindsj# namely, iiodhaywya 



Vaidharmya (or homogeneous and heterogeneous). Of 
these the former is of five kinds : — 

(1) Sadhanadkarmavikalam or imperfect micidle ; 

(2) Sadhyadharmavikalanii defective major term ; 

(3) Ubhayadharmavikalani, defective major and 
middle ; 

(4) Ananvayant^ non-concomitance, and 

(5) Vipartta-anvayam (contradictory concomitance) 


Similarly heterogeneous sample is also of fivekitids, 
namely : — 

(1) Sadhya-avyavriti (not heterogeneous from the 
opposite of the major term) ; 

(2) Sadhana-avyavytli (not heterogeneous from the 
opposite of the middle term) ; 

(3) Ubhaya-avyavrtii (heterogeneous from neither 
the opposite of the middle term nor the opposite of the 
major term) ; 

(4) Avyatirekha (a heterogeneons example showing 
the absence of disconnection between the middle term 
and the major term) ; 

^ (5) Viparttavytirekha (a heterogeneous example 

showing the absence of an inverse disconnection between 
the taiddle term and the major term). 

(i) Of these Sadhanadharmavikalani consists*!?! the 
example exhibiting a defective middle term, as in the 

Soand is eternal 

Because whatever has no corporeal form is eternal 
Therefore what is seen is paramai}u(p}xAv 7 \s^\^ atom). 

In this the example paramanu being eternal and at 
the same time corporeal contains to the full the character 
of the major tehin, but is defective in not being possessed 



of the character of the Ssdhanadharma, or the middle 

^2) Sadhyadharmavikalam] in the example offered 
the character of the major term is defective, as in 

Sound is eternal 

Because it is non-corporeal 

Whatever is non-corporeal is eternal, as Buddhi 

• • 

In the example Buddhi (intelligence) which is brought 
in aft an illustration being ^non-corporeal and therefore 
being non-eternal at the same time, shows to the full the 
non- corporeality, which is the character of the Sadkana 
or the middle term, being defective in eternality, which 
is the predicate of the major. 

(3) Ubhayadharmavikalam ; in the example given 
both the major and the middle are found defective. This 
is of two kinds. Sat and A sat. Example of Sat is, in a 
thing that exists that which is predicated shows both a 
defective major and a defective middle, as in the 

Sound is eternal 

Because it is non-corporeal 

Whatever is non-corporeal is eternal like a pot. , 

Here the pot, which is brought in as an example 
» bein^a product, does not partake of the charact^ of 
the eternal as predicated in the major, nor of the charac- 
ter of non-corporeality predicated in the middle ; thus it 
shows itself to be defective both in respect of |he major 
and in respect of the middle. AsadubkayadharfnavikMam 
shows a similar double defect in a thing non-existent, as 
in the exanfple 

Sound is non-eternal 
• Because it is corporeal 

* Whatever is corporeal is non-eternal like nknia (ether). 




In this the example- AMsa does not partake of the 
character of non-eternality predicated in the major, nor 
the corporeality predicated in the middle, to hijn who 
states that AMsa is non-existent. On the other hand, to 
one who believes in Aka'sa being existent, it is eternal, 
and non-corporeal. Therefore to him also it is defective 
both in respect of the major and in respect of the middle. 

(4) Ananvayam (non-concomitance in example) 
consists in the middle and the major, without stating the 
connection between the two,^exhibiting the real character 
of both, as in the example, 

Sound is not eternal 

Because it is a product 

A pot is a product and non-eternal. 

In this example the general concomitance that ‘ what- 
ever is a product is not eternal ’ not being stated, the 
concomitance between the major and the middle is not 
made clear. 

(5) Vzpartia-anvayam (the contradictory concomit- 
ance). This consists in establishing concomitance 
merely by the concomitance of the example with that 
which is predicated in the major term, as in the example, 

*' Sound is non-eternal 

Because it is a product 

‘ Whatever is not eternal is a product. 


In saying so, concomitance fails, because the universal 
statement whatever is a product is not eternal, is not 
stated, and therefore it fails in as much as the major is 
nor drawn as a conclusion from the middle ; on the 
contrary, the statement of universal concomitance is 
made from the major term. The defect consists in this ; 
what is predicated in the major may be more extensive 
than that which is stated in the middle term, as in what- ^ 
ever is not eternal is a pr£)duct, 



(1) SaMya-avySvrf^i consists in the example being 
incompatible with that which is predicated in the middle 
while it is not so with what is predicated in the major ; 
as in the example : — 

Sound is eternal 

Because it is non-corporeal 

Whatever is non-eternal is also not non-corporeal 
, ^ as Paramdnu, 

In t^his example, the paramUnu which is brought in as an 
example, being eternal and corporeal as well, it is 
incompatible with the non-corporeality predicated in the 
middle, while it is compatible with the eternality predi- 
cated in the major. 

(2) Ssdkana-avynvrtfi consists in the example being 
incompatible with what is predicated in the major w hile 
it is not so with that which is predicated in the middle ; 
as in the example, 

Sound is eternal 

Because it is non-corporeal 

Whatever is not eternal is also not non-corporeal, 
like Kaima. 

Here the heterogeneous example Karma, while it it 
non-corporeal, is at the same time not eternal. There- 
** fore it is incompatible with the eternality predicatld in 
the major and is compatible with the non-corporeality 
predicated in the middle. 

(3) In Ubhaya-avyn,vrtti the heterogeneous example 
brought in for illustration while being incompatible ^ith 
what is predicated in the middle term and the major is 
of two kinds 

(i) Ubhaya-avyavrtti in that which exists and (ii) 
* Ubhaya-avyavrtti in that which does not. The former is 
a heterogeneous example in things that £xist which do 



not show incompatibility with the predicate of the major 
and the middle, as in the example : — 

Sound is eternal , 

Because it is non-corporeal 

Whatever is non-eternal is also not non-corporeal 
like Akaia. 

In this Akasa that is brought in as a heterogeneous 
example is eternal and non-corporeal to him that believes 
in its being a substance. Therefore the eternality predi- 
cated in the major and the pon-corporeality predicSted 
in the middle are both of them not incompatible. But 
to him that does not believe in its being a substance, in 
the example, 

Sound is non-eternal 

Because it is corporeal 

Whatever is non-eternal is also not corporeal like 

In this, to him that says that AkU'sa is not a substance, as 
it is itself non-existent, the noo-eternality in the major 
and the corporeality in the middle are both neither 
compatible nor incompatible. 

(4) Avyatirekha where that which is predicated in 
the major being non-existent, the non-existence of that 
whick is predicated in the middle is not stated, as in the 
exantple, ** 

Sound is eternal 

Because it is a product 

• Whatever is non-eternal, it is also not a non- 

Without making an explicit statement as the above when 
one asserts that in a pot, both the character of being a 
product and of the non-eternality exist, it is Viparlta- 
vyaiirekha in .heterogeneous example. ViparJiavyatf- 



rekha consists in a statement of non-compatibility in 
illogical order, as in the example, 

^ Sound is eternal 

Because it is corporeal. 

In this instead of stating that wherever eternality does 
not exist there corporeality also does not exist, but 
stating instead, that wherever there is not corporeality 
.there eternality also does not exist. In this way of 
stating it, there is an incompatibility of Vyatirekha. 

•By the fallacious reasoning, which has been thus 
expounded, understand clearly the character of fallacious 
inference, and by applying this method, make sure of 
whatever you know to be correct knowledge. 


Manimekhalai who had already learnt all that had 
happened in her previous birth, after having taken upon 
herself the duty of giving gifts and walking in the path of 
right conduct, worshipped three several times the triple 
jewel of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, and placed herself 
exclusively under the protection of Buddha Dharma. 
Aravana Adigal who was to expound to her the righteous 
path of the Dharma said : ‘ At the time when the world 

should be full of beings poor in understanding, the 
• Budtiha, at the earnest entreaty of all the celestial beings 
of the Tushitaloka, ^ each in his turn, appeared leaving 
that heaven of joy empty ; then he sat at the foot of the 
Bodhi-tree, and, conquering the enemy Mara,»heczmt a 
hero. The good teaching of the ‘ Four Truths ’ which 
the beautiful hero imparted, after having pulled up by the 
root the tLree faults, were taught with ineffable benefi- 
cence in the past by innumerable other Buddhas. These 

^ The Heaven of nr^lloyed bliss. • 



truths provide the means of crossing the ocean of existence 
by destroying the twelve Nidmias. These latter appear 
one from the other in order as cause and effect, and Joeing 
capable of reappearance as consequent upon that which is 
before it, .assume the form of a never-ending circle. 
When in this order of cause and consequence the first 
ceases to exist, the next follows in cessation ; when it 
comes into existence, that which follows it does^so in-, 
evitably. So these are properly described as a chaitr of 
causes and conditions. Tljey may equally well ''be 
regarded as substance and attribute. Thus arranged 
these twelve Nidanas fall into four divisions, showing 
three joints. Appearance in birth or rebirth is of three 
kinds (human, heavenly or of the nether world), and is 
of three divisions in time, past, present and future. These 
also produce the faults, deeds and their consequences, 
and are impermanent and cause only sorrow. When one 
gets to understand this character of these Nidanas, he 
knows what will assure him the permanence of release 

Further it becomes the means for the cultivation of 
the Four Truths, and is constituted of the five Skandkas. 
It is capable of being argued in the six forms beginning 
with 4;he ‘ assertion of truth ’. It results in the ‘ four ’ 
formr, of excellence. It is open to question in four.Jvays 
and being capable of respective answers in four ways 
similarly. It is without origin and without end. It is 
a series obcontinuous becoming without ever reaching 
finafdestruction. It neither does, nor can it be described 
as being done. It is neither self nor is it possessed by 
another self. It is nothing that is gone, notMng that is 
to come. It cannot be brought to an end, nor is it to end 
itself. It is itself the result of the deed, birth and cessa- 
tion. Such is'‘the nature of the twelve causes and condi- 



tions beginning with ignorance, and called the Nidanas. 
These 'twelve are : — 

^i) Ignorance {Pedamai, Sans. Avidyd). 

(2) Action {Seykai, Sans. Karma). 

(3) Consciousness {Unarvu, Sans. Vignand). 

(4) Name and form {Aru-uru, Sans. Namarupa). 

(5) Six organ^of sense {Vayil, Sans. Shadayatana). 
(6} Contact (Kru, Sans. Sparta). 

• (7) Sensation {Nztharvu, Sa.ns. Vedana). 

• (8) Thirst or craving Sans. Trishna). 

(9) Attachment Sans. Upadmia). 

(10) Becoming or existence (Pavam, Sans. Bkava). 

(11) Birth (r<7 nam., Sans. Jaii). 

(12) The result of action, old age and dtzth{Vmaip- 
payan. Sans. Jaramaranam). 

If people understand the twelve-fold nature of the 
chain of cause and effect, they then understand the 
supreme truth and will enjoy permanent bliss. If they 

do not, they are indentured to suffer in the depths of 
hell. I 

^ The following exposition of the Nidanas based on the Pali texts and the 
Maddhyamanikaya by the latest writer on the Doctrine of Bnddba, 
Dr. George Grimm, may be compared with the exposition given in the Mani- 

* Now we only need to run through the whole formula in its toti^ity. 

*^n dependence on ignorance— arises the processes— that is the 

organic processes, especially those of senses, sankhara. * 

* In dependence on the processes (of life, evSpecially on the activities of 
thesense.s}, arises consciousness, 

Tn dependence on consciousness, arises the corporeal organism— 
rupa, • ^ 

^ In dependence on the corporeal organism, arise the six organs of 

' In depegdence on the six organs of sense, arises contact— 

* In dependence on contact, arises sensation — vedand, 

‘ In dependence on sensation, arises thirst— 

* In dependence on thirst, arises grasping— 

^ ‘ In dependence on grasping, arises becoming— 

‘ |n dependence on becoming, arise® birth— • 

224 MAlillMeKHALAI 

(I'i Ignorance consists in not understanding what 
was explained above, in being liable to delusion" and m 
believing in what one hears to the neglect of that which 

one is able to see for himself, as believing m the exis- 
tence of the horns of a rabbit because someone else says 

they worlds, the world of life is illimi- 

table, and Iwing beings “ “ f f 

are men, gods. Brahmas, the inhabitants of hellythe 
crowd of animals and spirits.. According to good deeds 
and bad, life takes its birth in one or other of these. 
Ever since it assumes the form of embryo, the resul o 
these deeds will show themselves either in the happiness 
o mind or in anxiety of suffering. Of these evil deeds^ 
killing, theft and evil desire show themselves as evils 
snrinSng in the body. Lying, speaking ill of others, 
Swords and useless talk, these four .show themselves 
t evils of speech. Desire, anger and illusion are 
three deeds of evil that arise in the mind. Ihese ten 

- In clepenclcnce 0.1 birth arises old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, 

min, grief, and entire sum of suffering.”^ _ 

, “ Ihns com s .. A ' show the relation of the single links m a 

The Buddha m it wisl - - ^ which they condition themselves 

burely^abslract manner, m t m . y ^ death, ^rrow, 

internally and in tliemp r- ^ ‘ machine. Such an organis'ffi must 

witha*corporeal organism, as . 1 .. ■ ' ■ — ^ _ nothing, but a special 

reborn, therefore it p-^^^ ’dltred by t mid 

case of bemmng. becoming ibhavaicwM). Such 

grasping is ““ditioirtd by sensation is the consequence 

thirsj^an ap^ar therefore it presupposes c»-gans 

of contact between the f d an o ' ^^,^1 organism for 

their supporter. Sncli^ g consciousness is only 

only especially of the activiUes 

onrsen's But these are only set going, where exists as to the , 

nnwholesomeness of their r^ults._ _ 289-90)." 



the wise would avoid. If they should fail to do so, they 
would ‘be born as animals or spirits or beings of the 
nether world, and make themselves liable to extreme 
anxiety of mind and suffering. Good men^ on the 
contrary, would avoid these ten, and assuming the good 
discipline {Stlam) and taking upon themselves to do 
deeds of charity {Danain), will be born in the three 
higher ^classes of beings, such as the Dems (gods), men 
’or Brahmas, and live a life of enjoyment of happiness as 
a result of good deeds. 

(3) Consciousness {(^narvu) consists in feeling like 
one in sleep, without the feeling leading to any action, 
or to any satisfaction. 

(4) Name and form {Aru-uru) consists in that 
which has the feeling described above, and constituting 
life and body. 

(5) Organs of sense {Vnyil) are, on examination, 
those that carry consciousness to the mind ( Vignana or 

(6) Contact {Urii) consists in Vigtimta and the 
organs of sense experiencing touch with other things 
(veru pulangal). 

(7) Sensation {NiAiarvu) consists in the mind or 
VignSna enjoying that of which it has become conscious. 

• ^(8) Thirst or craving {Vetkai) consists in not^eel- 
ing satisfied with that which is thus enjoyed. 

(9) Attachment \Parm^ consists in the desire for 
enjoyment impelling one into action. 

^ The Sllaz, according to the Banddhas, are five or ten. They are 
(1) not killing *(2) not lying, (3) not stealing, (4) no evil desire, (5) non- 
acceptance of gifts. are the five principal ones. Not assuming high 
^ seats or beds, not wearing unguents or rich garments, not touching gold and 
silver, etc., not enjoying music, dancing, etc., eating before sun-rise. These 
are sub.sidiary and not obligatory on all, , • 

29 * " . • 




(lo) Becoming {Pavam) consists in the collection 
of deeds indicating the consequence to whidh each 

(it) Birth (Tdmal) consists in the result of deeds 

leading to the conscious taking of birth in one or other 
of the six forms of birth in the inevitable chain of cause 
and effect. 

(12) Disease {Pint) consists in the suffering of the 
body by a change from its natural condition in conse- 
quence of the result of deeds. Old age {Muppn) consists 
in the loosening of the body as one draws nearer and 
nearer to the end. Death {Sukkadit) ultimately consists 
in the human body, composed of life and body, dis- 
appearing as the setting sun. 

From ignorance arises action ; from action springs 
consciousness ; from consciousness comes ideas of name 
and form ; from name and form spring the organs of 
sense ; through organs of sense contact becomes 
possible ; contact results in sensation or experience ; 
experience produces desire ; from desire springs attach- 
ment ; from attachment comes into existence collection 
of deeds ; as a result of this collective deed arise other 
Various forms of birth ; birth inevitably brings along 
with^ it age, disease and death, and the consequent 
anxigty and the feeling of incapacity to get rid jDf it. # 
This never-ending suffering is the ultimate result. In 
such a never-ending circle of experience, when ignorance 
ceases, ac|ion will cease ; with action consciousness will 
cealS ; with consciousness notions of name and form 
will cease; with the cessation of name and form, organs 
of sense will cease ; with the cessation of the^ organs of 
sense, contact will cease ; contact ceasing, sensation or 
experience will cease ; with sensation or experience “ 
desire will cease ; desire., ceasing to exist, there will b’e 



no attachment ; without attachment, there is no accumu- 
lation df deeds ; without the accumulated mass of deed, 
there will be no becoming ; with the cessation of 
becoming, there will be no birth, no disease, no age, no 
death, and in consequence, no anxiety and no helpless- 
ness. Thus this never-ending series of suffering will 
be destroyed. 

Of these twelve nidanas, the first two ignorance and 
actipn are regarded as belonging to the first section. All 
thoise that follow spring from these two. The following 
five, namely, name and f6rm, organs of sense, contact 
and experience, these five, as springing from the former 
two, are regarded as constituting the second division. 
Thirst, attachment, and the collection of deeds constitute 
the third division as they result as evil in the enjoyment 
of the previous five, and, in consequence, as action 
resulting therefrom. It is from the folly of desire 
and consequent attachment that becoming arises. 
The fourth division includes birth, disease, age and 
death, since these four are experienced as a result 
of birth. 

Action is the cause of birth and consciousness springs 
out of it. Where these two meet they mark the fir^ 
conjunction. Where sensation and craving meet, it 
^ marks the second conjunction. The third junction (SDmes 
in where the accumulation of deeds results in Birth. 
Thus are marked the three points of junction in this 
chain of twelve causes and conditions. 

The three forms of birth are those of men, 'godg^^nd 
animals. These resultfrom the consciousness in previous 
birth as a result of the conformations springing out of 
ignorance. This happens either from the delusion that 
• this kind of birth is actually cessation of birth, or the 
taking of birth in a new form without the^consciousness, 


or the new birth coming with consciousness and the new 
form existing together. The three times are the past, 
present and future. Of these the past includes ignwance 
and action. To the present refer consciousness, name 
and form, the organs of sense, contact, sensation, thirst 
or craving, the becoming and birth. To the future 
belong birth, disease, age and death. The resulting 
anxiety and helplessness are evils that spring out of the 
previous series of present action. 

Desire, attachment and ignorance, these and 4he 
birth resulting therefrom, *^constitute action in the 
present and cause future birth. Consciousness, name 
and form, organs of sense, contact, sensation or ex- 
perience, birth, age, disease, and death, these are 
the consequential experience in life, both present and 
future. These are full of evil, of deeds and of conse- 
quences resulting from these deeds, and thus consti- 
tute suffering. Being such, they are all impermanent. 
While the nature of release {Vtdu) consists in the 
understanding that there is nothing like soul in anything 
existing.^ Consciousness, name and form, the organs 
of sense, contact, sensation, birth, disease, age and 
death, with the resulting anxiety and helplessness, 
these constitute disease. For this disease the causes 
are ignorance, action, desire, attachment and the collec- 
tion of deeds. For suffering and birth, attachment 
is the cause ; for bliss and cessation of birth, non- 
attachment is the cause. Words that embody this idea 
con'Stitute ''the ‘ Four Truths ’, namely, suffering, the 

^ This it must be noted refers to &iman or individual sel^ not Atman, 
the Universal self. This is an improvement introduced by the Satyasiddhi 
School of Buddhism, according to Chinese authority, by Harivarman, the 
chiei disciple of Kumara labdha\ Yamakami Sogen’s Systmis of 
Buddhist Thought^ 178. * 



cause o£ suffering, removal of suffering, and the way to 
remove* suffering. 

Tj?.ere are four kinds of questions and answers : — 

(i) To give a deliberate reply; (2) to separate the 
component parts of an issue and answer these separately ; 
(3) to answer by a counter question ; and (4) to keep 
silence in answer to a question. 

^ To^ question whether a thing that comes into exist- 
ence will also go out of existence, if the answer is 
‘ it*will ’ it is to give a deliberate reply. 

To a question whether a dead man will be born again 
or no, the enquiry whether in life he was without attach- 
ment or no, is to answer by separating the issues involved, 
and giving separate answers to it. 

To a question whether it is the seed that is first or 
the palm-tree, the enquiry which seed and which parti- 
cular tree, is answer by a counter question. 

To a question whether ‘ the sky flower ’ is new or old, 
silence is the best answer ; this is one way of getting 
round an inconvenient question. 

Bondage and release result from the Skandhas (aggre- 
gates of things). There is no agent outside entitled to 
bring them into contact. For the Skandhas and their 
manifestations as described above, the cause is the gjroup 
• of tliree evils ; desire, anger and illusion. Examined 
separately and understand that everything is imperman- 
ent, full of suffering, without a soul and unclean ; thus 
treating it, give up desire. Realizing that friendliness, 
kindliness, and (joy at the well-being of creatures) consti- 
tutes the best attitude of mind, give up anger. By the 
practice of Clearing {iruti), mentation [chintand), experi- 
encing in mind {bhavand) and realizing in vision {darsana), 
•deliberate, realize and give up all illusion. In these four 
vfays get rid of the darkness of«mind. • 

230 MAlillMEKHALAl 

In these auspicious words, free from inconsistency 
Aravana Adigal exhibited the illuminating lamp of 
knowledge. Manimekhalai, having assumed the habit of 
an ascetic ta-pasi and having heard the excellent exposi- 
tion of the Dhamta, devoted herself to penance in order 
that she may get rid of the bondage of birth. 



• R. GoPALAN, M.A. 

.(N'ote.—The numbers in thick type refer to the text of the poem.) 

Achala, 144. 

Abhanjika, 140. 

Adirai, .149, 150, 152. 
Adiyarkktftiallar, on the require- 
meifts of a Kappiyam, 2. 

Agagya, in, 114. 

Agastya, references to in Manime- 
khalai, 26, 27, 28, 145, 167. ‘ 

Agni, love of, 156. 

Ahalya, story of, in Manimekhalai, 
28 ; Indra’s love to, 156. 
Ahananuru^ 48. 

Aindravihara, at Kaveripattinam, 
^ 199. 

Ajivakas, 55, 56, 193. 

Akshapada, 68«, 101, 102, 110. 
Amarasundari, 182. 

Ambikapati, 11. 

Amndapati, 136. 

Amuda-Surabi, 138. 

Andhra country, teaching of Sunya- 
vada in, by Nagarjuna, 102. 
Aniruddha, 29. 

Appar, itenerary of, 46. 
Annradhapura, 102. 

Aputra, human element in, 25-26, 
140 ; hist, of, 143flf, 165, 180. 
Aravana Adigal, of Dignaga in, 99 ; 
anticipations of/ teachings, 93, 94, 
112, 113, 117, 136, 140, 141, 143, 147, 
165, 178, 180, 204, 205, 221-230. 
A§vagosha, philosophical schools at 
• the time of, 68«. 

Attipati, 133. 

Avanti, 133 ; Smiths from, 159. 


Banas, family of, 30. 

Banasura, 29. 

Bhagavata, 29. 

Bhagavatpada, 61 . 

Bbarata, 187. ^ 

Bhaskara, 61. 

Bhatta, 61. 

Bhavadasa, 60, 61. 

^Bhumichandra, 149, 180. 

Bhutavadi, 198. 

Bnuti, 145, 

• * % 

i Bodhayana, 60, 61 ; identity with 
i Vrttikara, 62 ; Thibaut’s views on, 
I 64 Keith on, 66«. 
j Bodhidharma, Dhyana School of, 84. 
! Brahmadatta, 61. 

! Brahma Dharma, 133, 164. 

I Brahmavadi, 192. 

I Brkatkatka, 30. 

I Buddha, 1, 132, 137. 
i Buddha’s birth, hour of, 52, 138, 140, 
i 166. 

i Buddha-seat, 132, 137, 163, 165, 183, 
184, 185, 199. 


Chakravala Kottam , Description of, 
125-6, 148, 154,* 165, 180, 

Champa, 118. 

Champapati, 27, 111, 129, 180; 

I Temple of, 53, 54, 157, 158, 163. 

I Chandradatta, 150, 152. 
Chandragupta, 78. 

Chitrapati, 112, 116; Soliloqy of, 
155-7, 175, 177. 


Devasvamin, GO, 61. 

Dharmachakra, 205. 

Dharmadatta, 169, 170. 

Dharmada Vana, 202. 

Dharmakirti, 110. 

Dharmapala, 85. _ 

Dhavalamalai, 148. * 

Dhrishidniabkasa, 215. ^ 

Dhyana, School of, 84. 

Dignaga, career and date of 79, 80. 
Dignaga and the author of Mani- 
mekhalai, relative position of, 
Jacobi on, 92, 93, 96-^. 

Dignaga and the a€thorslf?p of 
NyayapraveSa 108-110. 
Divyavadana, 55. 

Drishidnta^ kinds of, 208. 
Drishtivisha, 133, 163. 

Durga, 167. 

Durjaya, 131, 136, 141. 


j EJpphant-hungei;^ 154, 160, 

■m ■ : 




Gajabahu. 40 ; Ceylon tradition ol, on 
Chola Capital, 36. 

GSmukapoycfli. 1^. 

Gosala, 55, 55;^. 194//. 

Grdhrakuta, 130, 

Grimm (G.), 104//; on tne NiMnas, 
223//, 244//* _ ,, rl'itft 

Gurjaras, reference to £Uid tlie date 
of Manimeklialai, oo, O'** 


Haraprasad ^|?tn, 68. 

Harivarman, 82, 225//. 

I-ienderson, C. A., 47. < 

Hetu- Vidya-NyS^yctdvd^n't Sastni, 109. 
Himalayas, planting of the bow on, 

HhiM-Tsang, 84, 102, 103. 

Idavayam-Rishabaka (?) 139. 

liambhuti, 143. 

llafgS^ai. 3 ; Contemporaneity 
‘ of \vitli Rattan, IS. 

Indra, festival to, 23, 112, 114, 115, 
129, 177, 135; curse of, 204, 132, 
139 ; love to Abalya of, 156. 
TTsing, 109, 110. 

Jacobi, criticism of the views of, 

" 92-106. 

Jaimini, 159. 

Jananutra, 183. 

JinencTra, ‘205. 



Kaccbayanagara, 13_6* 

Kadalkonda Kakandi Nadu, 48, 49. 
Kakandan, 2§i, 167,169. 

Kak'-Hi, 167,^' 

Kakandi -Nadu 49. 

Kalahastl, 46. 

Kaiar Killi, 18. 

Kalavegam, 119. . ^ „ 

Kali, temple of, in Chakravala 

Kalinga, country of, 187* 
Kalingi(K), 47. ^ * 

Kamba^a Setty, 19, JSS, 20#, ^ 

Kanaka, 189. 

Kancliaiia, 113, 161, 102,171. 

Kanclii ; under Xlam-Kilu, lo, 21, 

41 ; described in Manimekhalai, 

20 21, 153 ; school of logic in, 80, 

165 ; famine at, 165, 20! rfeeding 
of poor by Manimekhalai, 203-4 ; 

Chaitya at, 202. 

Kannaki, 85, 180. 

Kannaki, image of at Van^i, 186. 
Kantama, 28, 111. 

Kantaii, 167. 

Kapila, city of, 187, 188. 

Kapila - Kapilavastu, 20V 
Karalar, 131. • 

Karii'ala, age of, 35, 49, 115, 12#. 
fKarikkarai, 47. 

Karivarti, battle of,18, 20, 41 ; identifi- 
cation of, 43, 159. __ 

Karikkarai IJdaiya Nayanar, 47. 
Kaihasarit Sdgara, 30. 

Kau.4ika, 118. 

Kavera. 27. 

Kaveri, origin of, 27. 28.^^ 
krwerlpattinara Pnhar, 112, 114, 
130, 134, 140, 170, 181, 185, 188,199. 
Kayahkarai, 133, 164, 181. 
Kavaf^andikal, 113, 149-150; story 
158, 161,162, 163, 


Ke^iakanibala, 1 44. 

Killi, 176, 180, 185. 

Knowledge, instruments ot, accoici- 
ing to lineadra, 205, 206. 

Korkai, 143. 

Kdvalan, 117, 120, 171. 

Krishna, reference to, 30, 159. 
Krtakoti, 57. 58, 59, 60, 61; identifi- 
cation 62, 189. 

Kiiccharakiidi^ai , S3 . 

Kumar a, 187. 

Kumaralabdha,, 82, 228. < 

Kumari, 28,^143. 

KufidalakBi, 1. 

Kuttuvar, ruler of, 200. 

I^akshmi, 131, 135, 137. 

Lakshmi, Goddess, reference to, 121. 
Lanka, 200. 


Madhavi, UZ, 116, 137. 141, 155.165. 
171, m. 

Madura, in the age of Sengnttwvau, 
20, 170 ; destruction of, 187, 
Madurapati, Goddess of, 187. 
Magadha, jewellers from, 159. 
Mahabali, 30, 159. 




Mahabharata, reference to incidents 
from, if? Manimekhalai, 29. 

Mahayana, antiquity of the teaching 
of, 102. 

Mahratft,, smiths from, 159. 

Manimekhala, Goddess of, 112, 124, 
129, 134, 155, 163, 177, 185 ; Temple 
to; 203, 204. 

Manimekhalai, the poem, 1~12 ; its 
affinity to the Silappadhikaram, 4, 

7, 12 ; main incidents of , 4, 5 ; pur- 
pose of author, 8 ; a Sangam work, 
11, 12*; jjow far historical, 12-34 ; 

* miraculous element in, 15, 23-4 ; 
reference to forms of Hinduism in, 
22# infusion of Sanskrit culture in, 
26, 27-32 ; astronomical details in,g 
51-2 ; philosophical systems in, 54- 
85 ; resume of discussion of views, 
85-107 ; Jacobi on the upper limit 
of the age of, 97 : Manimekhalai, 
in the crystal chamber, 121 ; in i 
Manipailavam, 131-140 ; realization 
of tile previous existence by, 133-4 ; 
teaching of, 137 ; encounter with 
Tivatilakai, 137-140 ; address of 
Aravana Adigal, to, 14I-I49 ; 
Kayaisaiidikai, ISO ; receives alms 
from Adirai, 152 ; at the prison 
house, 158-160; assumes the form 
of Kayagandikai, 161 ; at Mani- 
pallavam, 173-4, 180-186 ; at Vanji, 
186-189 ; philosophical discourses 
at, 189-199 ; receives teaching of 
Buddhism by Aravana Adigal, 

Manimekhahiitufavu, 2. 

Manipailavam, 19, 130, 131, 163, 165, 
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 199. 

Manmukha, 148. 

Markali, Gosala, 55, 194, 194w. 

Marutavega and Sutamati, 118, 122, 

• 131. • ‘ 

Maruti, 167. 

Mavan Killi = Nedumudi Killi, 18, 
35, 36, 159. 

Maya, 165. 


Naganadu, 133, !J7, 204, 

Nagapura, 180. 

Nagarjuna and Rattan, relative posi- 
tion of, 101 ; and Mahayana, 102. 

Nagas, 150, 151. 

Narasimhacharya, views of, on Dig- 

• naga, 100. 

Narkirar, on Pavattiri, 49. 

JSfhvakadir ^ 55, 

Netjumudi Ki}li, 18. 


Nedu-vel-killi, 204 . 

Nerivayil, 35! 

Nidanas, 178f. 

Niganta, system of, 55. 

^^^^3.ntha, 55, teaching of, 195, 

Ninjatia, 166. 

ISfyayadvara, Chinese translation of, 

97, 108-1 10. 

Nyayapravesa, Tiibianski on, 108- 
UO; the authorship of the, 108-110 ; 
Tibetan translation of Mironov on, 
109, 110 ; relation to Nydyadvara . 

98, 109-110. 


Ori, of the Kollimalais, 42, 44. 


Padapankayamalai = Grdhrakuta 

Padirrupattii, 94. 

Pandya, kingdom of, 146. 

Paranar, 94. 

Para§arya Vyasa, 90. 

Para.^urama, 49, 167. 

Pattinappdlai, description of Puhar 
in, 35. 

Pavattiri, Reddipalem, 48. 
Penmikadaiy reference to foreign 
people in, 53. 

Perumkappiyara, requirements of, 

Pllivalai, Naga princess, 19, 37, 177, 

Pitaka of the Buddha, relation to 
Rattan’s teaching to, 104. 

Podiyil, connection with Agastya, 
28, 153 ; situation of, 1S3«. ^ 

Prabhakara, 61. 

Prabhdvakachariia^ 94. 

Pradhyota, 149. ^ 

Pradhyumna, 29. 

Prmnhnasamucchaya Vriti, 10^, 110. 
Prapanchahrdayjiy 59, 59w. 

Punyaraja of Nagapura, 180. 
Purushartas, 1. 

Rahula, 133, 135, 164, lf*4. mm 
Rama, reference to causeway of, 


Ramagiri, hill of, 47. 

RSmdyana, referred to incidents in 
Manimekhalai, 28, 30. 

Ratnadipa, 135, 138. 

Ravivarma, 131,136. 

Rudran, %nnan, 35 ; contemporary 

J f Eariklla, 38.# 

'hi) 24 . ^ m , 




# • 




& ab firas vam in , 60 . 

SrxahuM<karan, 135, 140, 166, 15L 
gatlnvan, 150, 151, 152. 

Saivavadi, 192. 
grili, 143, 144. 

JSamanoU, lull of, 200. 

Samantakuta, 138. , 

Samudragtipta, period of, 79. 

San gam works, 11. 

Saiigama, 187. 

Saughadharma, 123. 

^ankarasvamin, source of teaching, | 
96, 97 ; relation to Dignaga’s tea- i 
ching, 98. 

Sankarshana, 60. 

Sankhya, i96f. 

Sanskrit culture, elements of, in 
Manimekhalai, 26-34. 

Sautrantika, 104. 

Sarasvati, 145. - 

SarvastivMin, Karma phenomeno- 
logy of, 81, 83. 

Sautrantika, foiin of Buddhism in 
Manimeklialai, 85, 104. 

Satta’n, 8, 9; ref . to in Tiruvalliiva- 
malai, 10 ; as a critic, 10 ; contem- 
poraneity of with Senguttiivan , 94 ; 
teaching of, 94if ; Jacobi on, claim 
to anteriority 105. 

Savakam, 21, 25. 

gavakam, 147 ; king of, 149, 165, 182, 

, 199. 

Sedi, 153. 

Senguttuvan, 9 ; contemporary of, 
with Sattan, 106, 189. 

Ship coins, 49. 

..'•^ilappadhikaram, 2 ; subject-matter 
of, 5-7 ; affinity to Manimekhalai, 
7, 9, 12; historical character of, 17; 
Adwarkunallar on the sub-divi- 
sioHs of, 16. 

^ilas, according to Buddhists, 117, 

Singapuram, 187. 
girtti, 18. 

Sirupanarrupadai; 36. 
^i yapr aka’ga^vami , 11. 

SkanShas, exposition of, 82, 83. 
Somadeva, 30. 

Sonagaram, 29, 

gri Bhashya, on the Bodhayana 
Vrtti, 87. 

§vngil 144. 

Sthaviravada, 84, 104. 

Sucharitamigra, 65. 

Sudukattu Kottam ==« Oqtakravala 
Kottam, 12Sf . » ^ 

Sugata « Buddlm^Qhaitya to, 201. 

Sutainati, 112, 117 ; adventure of, 118- 
9, 120 ; 121; history of, '»2-3, 129, 

130, 131, 136, 178,204. 

SutJuparvn, 206. ^ 


Tagacjilr, Adiyaman of,44. 

Tarai, 131, 136. 

Tildttama, 145. 

Tiraiyan, 48. _ 

Tirii-Karikkarai, 45, 46, 47 ; identi- 
fication of, 48. ^ 

Tirukovilur, Malayaman I^ri of, 42., 

Tiruvalluvar, 168«. c. 

Tivatjlakai, 112, 165, 

Tivatilakai and Manimekhalai 138 

^ -139, 140 ; temple constructed for, 


Tondaiman Ilam-Tirayar , birth of, 

37,“ 19, 106. ‘ 

Truths, four kinds of, 228, 229. 

Tusbita, Heaven of, 142. 

Tush ital oka, 221. 

Tuvadikan, 165, 201. 


Udayakuniara, 120; at the Crystal- 
chamber, 121, 129, 135, 156, 158, 
161, 162, 164. 

Uddyotakara and Sattan, 103. 

Ui., H., on Nyayadvara and Nyaya- 
pravE^a, 109. 

Ujjain, 30, 149. 

Upavarsha 61, 62, 63; Keith on, 66w, 
Uraiyur = Urandai, 35,36. 

Uttara Maga'dha, 166. 


Vachaspati Migra, 109. 

Vaduh avail, East and West, 46. 
Vaigeshika, 197. ^ 

Vaitnlya conti*oversy, 102. ^ 

Vajrayiidha, Temple of, 114. 

Vaiai Vanan, 39, 177. 

Vaiayapati, 1. 

Vaiidvaram = Karikkarai. ^ 
Vamanavatara, ref. to ia Silappdhi- 
karam, p. 30. 

Vanji, 7, 20, 21, 22, 51, 165, 199. 
Varahamihira, 52. 

Varanasi, 143. 

Va^amayilai, 177. 

Vasantamala, 112, 1!6, 117. 
Vasantavai, 172. 

Vasishta, 145. ^ 

Vasu, 187. 

Vasubandhu, and Akshapada, posi- 
tion of, 99, 79, 100, 101; age of, 79. 



Vatsyayana, school of, 79. 
Vayananifodu, 143. 

Vedavyasa, views of Jacobi on, 86, 

VedavSftii, 192. 

Velver Killi, 18. 

K/rfw, nature of, 228. 

Vidyabhushaja, 109. 

Vidyadharas, introdxiction of, in 
Manimekhalai, 24. 

Vijaya, 189. 

Vindhyavasini, Goddess, 162. 

Virai, 1131, 136, 140. 

•Vigakai,l65, 170, 171. 

Vishflupurana, 29. 

ViSvamitra, referred to in Mani* 
mekhalai, 30, 139. 

Vrnchi, 144. 

Vri§chjka, 153. 

Vrttikara, Jacobi on, 62; Jha on, 
62 ; Keith on, 62 ; identity of, 62. 


Yaugandharayana, 30, 31 ; reference 

in, 149, 

Y aSodharanagara, 136. 

Yavana, carpenters from, 159. 
Yen-shu, 84. 

Yogachara Phil, of Buddhism, 79. 


Ancient India* (Out of print and under revision;) ^ 

Beginnings of Sotith Indian History* (Out of print and under 

A little Known Chapter ol VIjayanagar History* (With jthe 

Early History of Vaishnavism in South India. (Oxford Ihiiver- 

sity Press.) ^ 

• ' • 

South India and Her Muhanifiiadari Invaders. (Oxford Univer- 
sity Press.) 0 


A Source Book of Hindu India. In two parts. (By Messrs. K. 
and J. Cooper, Bombay.) 

A Short History of Hindu India. Conipanion to the above. (By 
the same publishers.) 

Contributions of South India to Indian Culture. (Caleutta Uni- 
versity publication.) 

Works Edited for the University 

Sources of Vijayanagar History. By A. Raiigaswami Sarasvati, 
B.A. (At the University.) 

History of the Nayaks of Madura. By R. vSatyanath,a Aiyar, m.a,, 
L.B. (At the University.) 

A ' His|ory ,of the Pallavas of Kanchi, By R. (jopalan, m.a. 
{/tp the press.) ^ 

Administrative and Political Institutions of the Hindus. By 
V. R. Ramachandra Dikshifcar, M.A., dip ., ecom. {In the press.) 

ChrwMogicSl History' of South India. By the late Mr. Robert 
Sewell, {hi the press I) 

Other Publications 

Jouveau-Dubreuil’s Djavidian Architecture. (English Edi-.